Legislature(2005 - 2006)HOUSE FINANCE 519
01/17/2006 01:30 PM House FINANCE
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| HB 22 | |||
HOUSE BILL NO. 22
"An Act relating to the terms of legislators, to a 90-
day regular session of the legislature, to the date of
convening a regular session, and to procedures of
legislative committees during the interim; and
providing for an effective date."
2:48:18 PM
REPRESENTATIVE RALPH SAMUELS, CO-SPONSOR, introduced HB 22.
He explained that the most important reason to pass the bill
from the House Finance Committee would be to get more people
involved in the political process. He claimed that the
current amount of time - 120 days - was a difficult amount
of time for committee members to meet due to other job
obligations. A shorter session would make for a better
public process. He believed that the timing would allow
internal changing of the rules and better participation of
the public. The change would make legislators more
responsive to constituents.
Representative Samuels referenced the fiscal note and the
savings to the state. He mentioned the 'branches of power'
opposition, the argument that power would go to the
executive branch if there were a shorter session. He
pointed out that legislators could call a session at any
time.
Representative Samuels referred to the "Length of
Legislative Session in 27 Other States" (copy on file.) He
maintained that it is possible for the legislature to finish
its work in 90 days. He pointed out that the "rule changes"
had been discussed in the House State Affairs Committee.
2:52:36 PM
REPRESENTATIVE NORMAN ROKEBERG, CO-SPONSOR, added that he
has introduced the bill five different times. The
separation of powers issue is one of the key arguments
against the legislation. He maintained that a minor
revision of the uniform rules, which would allow interim
committees to move legislation between committees, would
overcome that concern. The legislators would be able to
stay in their communities longer. Many legislatures
throughout the country have shorter sessions and allow for
interim committee hearings. He explained how that process
might be possible in Alaska.
Representative Rokeberg stated that the legislature is the
voice of the people. Any money savings would be minimal,
and any restriction of legislative power would be minimal
with a statutory change and a rules change.
Co-Chair Meyer pointed out a savings of $650,000 indicated
in the latest fiscal note.
Representative Stoltze asked if the location of the
legislature was a bigger factor for most people deciding to
run.
2:57:12 PM
Representative Samuels thought if the legislature were held
in his area, more folks would run. Location plays a large
part, but he recommended getting more done in the interim
and during a shorter session.
Representative Rokeberg noted that he has a bill that would
address the concerns of Representative Stoltze.
Representative Stoltze asked if a shorter session would
require an adjustment of the uniform rules.
Representative Rokeberg noted that the matter has been
considered. There would be a companion House concurrent
resolution added to the bill, which would adopt changes in
the uniform rules. If the bill moves forward in the current
state, he would recommend adopting a companion bill. That
would be a judgment call. He did not think it was necessary
for the public to testify.
Representative Stoltze said he did not support changing the
public notice requirements. He asked if hearings might
affect the capital move issue.
3:02:00 PM
Representative Rokeberg recommended that the Juneau
legislation support the bill because it would help to keep
the capital in Juneau.
Representative Samuels pointed out that the 30-days' notice
of a meeting held during the interim was discussed in the
original bill, as was the ability to vote telephonically
during the interim.
Representative Stoltze commented that if a bill passes
through the initiative process, the legislature would have
the ability to act to make the necessary changes. He
thought there was merit to taking this issue to the ballot
box. He wondered if a statutory change was constitutional.
Representative Rokeberg responded that the initiative system
does not take all those considerations into account.
Representative Stoltze mentioned that there are separation-
of-power issues, but he stated support for the bill.
Representative Holm pointed out that the system used in
Alaska to determine appropriations to the various
departments uses the Budget Review Unit (BRU) process. He
questioned if a line item process might be better used to
determine appropriations in a 90-day session.
Representative Rokeberg stated that he did not have a
position on that. He suggested it might be better suited
for a biannual budget process. He noted concern however,
with oil price volatility.
Representative Samuels agreed with Representative Rokeberg.
3:08:06 PM
Representative Holm asked if state employees would have more
power in controlling information presented to the
legislature in the shortened 90-day cycle.
Representative Rokeberg thought they could and he expressed
opposition to the idea. He pointed out that the interim
meeting is an extension of the power of the committee chairs
to conduct their business. He reiterated the concern about
location.
3:09:43 PM
Representative Foster pointed out that in eighteen years he
has experienced seventeen special sessions, and 120 days is
not enough time to complete business. He commented on not
having enough time to get the votes in a shorter session.
He spoke against extending the session. He emphasized the
importance of representing the people and not running one's
own business.
Representative Samuels agreed, but referred to the internal
politics of waiting until the last minute and special
sessions, which won't change.
3:13:12 PM
Representative Joule noted that for 120 days the 60
legislators are available to the public, and a shorter
session would limit this accessibility.
Representative Samuels related that there are only about six
or seven constituents that choose to have access to him
during session. He did agree that those who do come to
Juneau do have access to all of the members at one time.
Representative Joule pointed out that his constituents get
to see all of the legislators during the session, and he
gets to see other legislators' constituents.
Co-Chair Chenault predicted that a lot less legislation
would be passed during a shorter session. He opined that it
might be difficult to pass a budget within a 90-day session.
Representative Rokeberg debated the idea that fewer bills
would be passed during a shorter session.
Representative Samuels noted an exception during an election
year.
3:21:27 PM
Representative Kerttula spoke to the personal sacrifice made
by legislators and the need to focus on making life easier
for them. She spoke against a shorter session. She offered
that, "No good business gets done after 10:00 p.m." She
encouraged continued efforts to make life easier for the
members.
3:24:46 PM
REPRESENTATIVE JAY RAMRAS, CO-SPONSOR, explained the graph
entitled "Qualification Status" (copy on file.) He reported
that this issue has been introduced 24 times. He shared the
valuable experience of traveling across Alaska to collect
45,300 signatures for the ballot initiative. He offered to
answer questions.
Co-Chair Meyer attended to housekeeping issues.
Co-Chair Meyer spoke to the conflict of interest ruling from
last year. The committee's policy is that members are not
required to bring up conflict of interest until on the House
Floor.
HB 22 was heard and HELD in Committee for further
consideration.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|