Legislature(2017 - 2018)GRUENBERG 120
03/02/2017 03:00 PM House STATE AFFAIRS
Note: the audio ![]()
and video ![]()
recordings are distinct records and are obtained from different sources. As such there may be key differences between the two. The audio recordings are captured by our records offices as the official record of the meeting and will have more accurate timestamps. Use the icons to switch between them.
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB97 | |
| HB44 | |
| HCR1 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | HB 44 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HCR 1 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| += | HB 97 | TELECONFERENCED | |
HCR 1-AMEND UNIFORM RULES: ABSTAIN FROM VOTING
3:37:50 PM
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS announced that the final order of business
would be HOUSE CONCURRENT RESOLUTION NO. 1, Proposing an
amendment to the Uniform Rules of the Alaska State Legislature
relating to voting and abstention from voting.
3:38:18 PM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON moved adopt Amendment 1, [labeled 30-
LS0209\J.6, Gardner, 3/1/17], which read:
Page 2, line 6:
Delete "a majority of"
Insert "three-quarters of"
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS objected for the purpose of discussion.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON stated that the intent of Amendment 1 is
to avoid the possibility of a legislator agreeing to allow a
member to abstain from voting to influence the passage of a bill
or resolution. She maintained that requiring a three-quarters
vote of 30 members instead of a simple majority would make it
more likely that members of both the majority and minority would
be needed for consent. She added that Amendment 1 would help to
avoid the perception that a vote on abstention could be used as
a tool to keep a legislator out of the voting process.
3:40:13 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX asked if the sponsor of HCR 1 considers
Amendment 1 a friendly or unfriendly amendment.
RYAN JOHNSTON, Staff, Representative Jason Grenn, Alaska State
Legislature, on behalf of Representative Grenn, prime sponsor of
HCR 1, stated that 28 states use a vote and 24 of those 28 use a
majority vote [to decide abstentions due to conflict of
interest]. He said that the use of "majority vote" in HCR 1 was
for the sake of continuity, since current statutes require that
at the municipal level.
3:41:00 PM
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK asked what the procedure was in the four
states not using majority vote.
MR. JOHNSTON replied that 4 of the 28 states use a two-thirds
vote. He confirmed for Representative LeDoux that he is not
aware of a three-quarters vote being used in any state.
3:41:29 PM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON stated that her intent was not to
introduce an unfriendly amendment.
3:41:43 PM
REPRESENTATIVE WOOL expressed his support for not using a simple
majority vote.
3:42:15 PM
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK moved to adopt conceptual Amendment 1 to
Amendment 1 to replace "three-quarters vote" with "two-thirds
vote".
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON objected for the purpose of discussion.
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK stated that there are very few legislative
actions requiring a three-quarters vote. He offered that the
only such vote is the one to spend the constitutional budget
reserve (CBR). He opined that such a requirement is a very high
standard, and a two-thirds vote requirement, such as for
effective date clauses and court rulings, is already a high
standard.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON removed her objection to conceptual
Amendment 1 to Amendment 1. There being no further objection,
it was so ordered.
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS removed his objection to Amendment 1, [as
amended]. There being no further objection, it was so ordered.
3:45:04 PM
The committee took a brief at-ease at 3:45 p.m.
3:45:35 PM
REPRESENTATIVE WOOL suggested a conceptual amendment to include
a sunset date in the proposed legislation to "take it for a test
drive." He asked if inserting a sunset date would be possible
with the understanding that the current legislature cannot tell
a future legislature "what to do." He asked what the effective
date was for the proposed legislation.
MR. JOHNSTON replied that as currently written, the proposed
legislation would take effect at the beginning of next year's
session [the second session of the Thirtieth Alaska State
Legislature, 2017-2018], up until the Thirty-First Alaska State
Legislature, 2019-2020. He stated that through discussions with
Legislative Legal and Research Services staff, he learned that
inserting a three-year sunset into the proposed legislation
would bind the Thirty-First Alaska State Legislature, 2019-2020,
to adopting Uniform Rule 34(b) outside of the normal procedures
of adopting rules prior to the session. He said that
technically the proposed legislation has a sunset, which is the
start of the Thirty-First Alaska State Legislature, 2019-2020.
He said that at that point, [the Uniform Rule] could be changed
or adopted again for the Thirty-First Alaska State Legislature,
2019-2020.
REPRESENTATIVE WOOL asked for confirmation that [the Uniform
Rule] would be in effect at the beginning of next year's
session, and when the Thirty-First Alaska State Legislature,
2019-2020, begins, the rule would come before the legislature
again for adoption.
MR. JOHNSTON confirmed that is correct.
MR. WAYNE, in response to Chair Kreiss-Tomkins, stated that to
comment on the discussion, he would need to review the
requirements for Uniform Rules to expire and be re-adopted.
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS recommended postponing introduction of the
suggested amendment to the 3/7/17 House State Affairs Standing
Committee meeting.
3:49:16 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX asked if she is correct in her belief that
the Uniform Rules will remain in effect until re-adopted by the
Thirty-First Alaska State Legislature, 2019-2020, and all the
rules together are adopted by the legislature at the beginning
of the session.
MR. JOHNSTON said, "That is correct." He stated that there is
an automatic sunset date on Uniform Rule 34(b) because it must
be re-adopted by the Thirty-First Alaska State Legislature,
2019-2020. He expressed his understanding that the legislature
can amend a Uniform Rule prior to adoption by the legislature.
MR. WAYNE cited Uniform Rule 53, which he said addresses the
adoptions and amendments of Uniform Rules. He paraphrased
Uniform Rule 53, which read as follows [original punctuation
provided]:
The Uniform Rules of each legislature shall be adopted
in joint session by a majority vote of the full
membership of each house. Thereafter the Uniform
Rules may be amended only by the adoption of a
concurrent resolution by a two-thirds vote of the full
membership of each house.
MR. WAYNE stated that he agreed with Mr. Johnston's explanation.
[HCR 1 was held over.]
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| HCR 1 Draft Proposed Amendment 3.1.17.pdf |
HSTA 3/2/2017 3:00:00 PM |
HCR 1 |
| HB 44 Draft Proposed Amendment U.3 3.2.17.PDF |
HSTA 3/2/2017 3:00:00 PM |
HB 44 |
| HB 97 Draft Proposed Amendment A.1 3.2.17.pdf |
HSTA 3/2/2017 3:00:00 PM |
HB 97 |