Legislature(2017 - 2018)GRUENBERG 120
04/04/2017 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 | |
| HB158 | |
| HB190 | |
| HB163 | |
| HJR3 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | HB 190 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 163 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| *+ | HB 158 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | HB 165 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| *+ | HJR 3 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
HJR 3-CONST. AM: 90 DAY REGULAR SESSION
4:49:56 PM
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS announced that the final order of business
would be HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 3, Proposing amendments to
the Constitution of the State of Alaska relating to the duration
of regular sessions of the legislature.
4:50:11 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MATT CLAMAN, Alaska State Legislature, as prime
sponsor of HJR 3, stated that it has been over ten years since
Alaska voters passed a ballot initiative to limit the
legislative session to 90 days. He maintained that since the
implementation of the initiative in 2008, the legislature has
exceeded the 90-day limit five times. He asserted that as
elected officials, it is the duty of legislators to listen to
the people of Alaska. The current pattern of extending the
session to 120 days shows voters that the legislature is neither
performing its job nor performing its job in the length of time
expected by the public.
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN relayed that HJR 3 would allow voters to
decide once and for all on the length of the regular session of
the legislature by voting on an amendment to the Alaska State
Constitution. He offered that if the amendment is passed by the
voters, the length of the regular session would be changed from
120 days to 90 days in the state constitution. He noted that if
the amendment failed, he would support legislation to change the
Alaska Statutes to reflect 120 days, which would be consistent
with the public's intent.
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN emphasized that the public elected
legislators to make tough choices and to make these choices on
time and under budget. He asserted that the legislature needs
to maintain public confidence in the elective system.
4:51:29 PM
SARA PERMAN, Staff, Representative Matt Claman, Alaska State
Legislature, on behalf of Representative Claman, prime sponsor
of HJR 3, stated that HJR 3 would put a proposed constitutional
amendment on the ballot to change the length of the legislative
session from 120 days to 90 days. She reiterated that Alaska
voted in November 2006 to shorten the duration of the regular
legislative session to 90 days; since the initiative took
effect, the legislature has exceeded the 90-day limit five
times, costing Alaskans more than $900,000.
MS. PERMAN explained that currently the Alaska State
Constitution and the Alaska Statutes are inconsistent regarding
legislative session duration. She cited AS 24.05.150(b), which
read: "The Legislature shall adjourn from a regular session
within 90 consecutive calendar days, including the day the
legislature first convenes in that regular session." She
referred to Article II, Section 8, of the Alaska State
Constitution, which read: "The legislature shall adjourn from
regular session no later than one hundred twenty consecutive
calendar days from the date it convenes".
MS. PERMAN asserted that HJR 3 would update the state
constitution by changing 120 days to 90 days, if the public
votes in favor of the constitutional amendment. She said that
Section 1 of HJR 3 would amend Article II, Section 8, to state
"not later than ninety days". Section 2 of HJR 3 would amend
[Article XV] to state that the amendment to Article II, Section
8, would apply during the first regular session of the Thirty-
First Alaska State Legislature, [2019-2020], and thereafter.
She said that Section 3 of HJR 3 states that the proposed
amendments would be placed on the ballot in the next general
election.
MS. PERMAN relayed that in 1984 the Alaska State Constitution
was amended from an undefined session length to 120 days after
legislators were racking up costs (indisc.) oil tax structures.
She said that in 1981, session lasted 165 days. She explained
that the framers of the state constitution did not initially set
a limit for the length of session, but she added that clearly
without session duration limits, the legislature does not
resolve business in a timely and cost-effective manner.
MS. PERMAN related that last year's extended session lasted 121
days and cost the state $698,772, which does not include the
later special sessions. She maintained that the legislature
should eliminate the inconsistencies between the Alaska State
Constitution and the Alaska Statutes and demonstrate to Alaskans
that legislators are "here to do the job they elected us to do
in the time they have designated."
MS. PERMAN noted that the proposed amendment would not remove
the legislature's ability to extend session one time by ten days
by a two-thirds majority vote; that allowance will remain in
Article II, Section 8, of the state constitution. She also
mentioned that the Office of the Governor has assigned a zero-
fiscal note.
4:54:08 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KNOPP stated that he agrees in concept and has no
doubt that if put on the ballot, Alaskans will vote for a 90-day
session limit. He said that his concern is that the legislature
has only been successful in limiting the session to the 90 days
two times. He opined that he is not sure the legislature can
get its work done in 90 days. He offered that the legislature
may have to consider how it conducts business, and he suggested
that there would be unending special sessions.
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN answered that when the initiative for 90
days passed, the legislature should have changed the way it did
business. He noted the length of time legislators spent in
budget sub-committees. He said, "I'm not pointing the finger at
anyone, it's part of the process." He offered the scenario of
legislators recognizing that budget sub-committees must be
concluded within 30 days. He said, "We would be in much better
shape in terms of debating budget issues if we ... realized
there was a meaningful deadline that we needed to meet to get
finished in 90 days." He asserted that he agrees that the
legislature needs to change the structure of how business is
done. He relayed that when he is in his home district, he is
asked, "What's taking so long?" When the answer is, "We're just
not very good at getting our work done," the response is, "You
just need to get better." He reiterated that legislators are
not hired to delay but to figure out ways to do their work
efficiently.
REPRESENTATIVE KNOPP asked if there is any suggestion for how to
limit the [number of] special sessions through constitutional
amendment; a special session may be necessary once or twice but
should not be called endlessly "to get your way."
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN responded that he would not have a problem
with trying to limit the authority allowing for repeated special
sessions. He maintained that a special session is called for a
specific purpose or limited items. For example, a special
session was called in October 2015 for oil and gas tax related
issues; it was for a specific purpose; and the work was
completed in seven to ten days. He mentioned that last summer's
special session had a limited number of items on the agenda. He
asserted that since the constitution allows 120 days for
session, "everything is still on the table" past the 90-day
point; therefore, legislators may continue to pretend that it is
"business as usual" for the next 30 days. He stated that the
proposed joint resolution addresses the extension of the regular
session beyond 90 days. He offered that he is open to
consideration of the question of calling special sessions, but
he said he does not believe the two issues to be linked. He
asserted that the governor's authority in the constitution to
call special sessions is separate from the section that HJR 3
proposes to amend.
4:58:50 PM
REPRESENTATIVE WOOL stated that when the legislative session was
unlimited [in length], legislators had no staff; a legislator
did all his/her own work. He mentioned that in films of old
floor sessions, there was one person next to the Speaker of the
House; now there is a "small army up there." He attested that
some legislators have as many as seven staffers. He maintained
that rather than legislators not getting their work done, they
are taking on much more work; because they are introducing so
many bills, they run out of time. He asserted that in
conjunction with the 90-day limit, there should be a limit on
the number of bills that are introduced and processed. He
maintained that the work of the legislature is not a 90-day job.
He said that even if the legislative session ended after 90
days, it has "such machinery in place that ... promulgates so
much more work than can be started and stopped in 90 days."
REPRESENTATIVE WOOL maintained that he is not against a very
part-time legislature that meets for 90 days, but he stated that
he believes that the legislature would need to "take apart some
of the machinery" that is in place for inherently creating more
work than can be done in 90 days. He said that he applauds
Representative Claman's effort; he does not feel 120, 150, or
180 days should be the norm; but the legislature needs to take
on less work. He conceded that currently there is a great deal
going on in the state regarding the budget and revenue that is
unprecedented. He asked if Representative Claman foresees a
time when the legislature has a smaller mountain of work to do
and can do it in 90 days, and there are not hundreds of bills to
be processed.
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN answered that if the public knew the
details of all the bills that individual legislators chose to
introduce, it would be disappointed. He maintained that Alaska
has functioned "pretty well" over the last 58 years. He
asserted that there are still problems to be fixed, but many of
the bills that are introduced have no chance of passing both
bodies of the legislature. It is generally recognized that
those bills are "not going to go anywhere." He said that the
question is: "Why are people continuing to bring forward bills
that they don't see any chance of them going anywhere?" He
maintained that the public is asking that question; it is a
question regarding legislators exercising proper restraint. He
relayed that in other states - many with shorter legislative
sessions than Alaska - one of the appeals of the shorter session
is that it is harder to file more bills. He asserted that he is
100 percent certain, for the reasons articulated by
Representative Wool, if the legislature reverted to a 120-day
session, there would not be a reduction in the bills filed, but
an increase, and the legislature would be in session even
longer.
[HJR 3 was held over.]