Legislature(1999 - 2000)
04/28/1999 01:20 PM House JUD
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
HJR 18 - CONST. AM: ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
CHAIRMAN KOTT announced the first order of business is House Joint
Resolution 18, Proposing amendments to the Constitution of the
State of Alaska relating to an office of administrative hearings.
Number 0137
REPRESENTATIVE MURKOWSKI said the subcommittee met and made some
changes to the resolution. She indicated that Subsection C was
added on page 1, beginning on line 14, and reads as follows:
The legislature may exempt any agency of the State from
(a) of this section by law.
REPRESENTATIVE MURKOWSKI further stated that this was added to
address the concerns that were in the initial resolution where it
appeared that the legislature, in fact, did not have the authority
to decide who may or may not be in or out with regards to the full
centralized office of administrative hearings. She said there had
been some discussion over language that would have specifically
exempted boards and commissions. She feels, as do those on the
subcommittee, that this legislation is far from perfect, and that
it needs review during the interim.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG stated that he is satisfied with the
stipulation, regarding an agency and the ability to include or
exclude, to include the boards and the commissions. He believes
this will help the success of this resolution.
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT asked, "What change does this make in our
power to do anything in this area?"
REPRESENTATIVE MURKOWSKI stated that she understood that the
testimony indicates that the public needs to basically provide the
direction to the legislature that "you shall create an office of
administrative hearing that is your centralized office." She said
if this is not put before the people then this legislature would
not do it.
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT commented that it does not change the legal
authority in this area.
REPRESENTATIVE MURKOWSKI replied that she does not believe it
changes the legal authority in this area.
Number 0430
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES stated that she was happy to see the inclusion
of Subsection C because she feels, without it, the issue is dead.
She said, "I think this is probably one of the best things that we
could do. It couldn't have been done by statute, but we couldn't
pass it by statute. We might have a little problem getting a
constitutional amendment passed. I'd be happy to talk to anybody
about this issue. From a practical standpoint, I know that what
happens with us when we have a system, and you get used to the
system, we don't want change, and we think that what we're doing
works perfectly fine. We can find all kinds of excuses, from the
fact that no one else would know how to do this. No one else would
have the expertise. All of those kinds of excuses are not valid
excuses. It's to say that, 'I'm the only one that smart, and no
one else is smart, so no one else can do this besides me.' So, I
think ... in the regulation process, where the regulations are
written by the agency, they are enforced by the agency, and, if you
want to appeal any of those actions, you appeal to the same agency.
That is not democracy. So, I think this is a really good plan to
have innocent, third-party decision-makers in the appeal process."
Number 0584
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG stated that he would also prefer to have
this done by statute. He said, "But that would require that the
administration would cooperate (indisc.)."
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT said no and stated, "We have a veto-proof
majority. We can do it anytime we want."
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG indicated that it is his preference that
the administration and legislature work jointly on this. He thinks
it is an excellent model for reducing costs and providing better
service to the people of Alaska. He made a motion to adopt the
proposed committee substitute [Version I, Cook, 4/27/99]. There
being no objection, it was so ordered.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG made a motion to move Version I, with
individual recommendations and zero fiscal notes, out of the
committee.
CHAIRMAN KOTT objected, noting that they did not have the votes.
He asked Representative Rokeberg to withdraw his motion.
Number 0666
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG withdrew his motion.
CHAIRMAN KOTT asked Representative Murkowski to comment on her
concerns regarding the resolution.
Number 0685
REPRESENTATIVE MURKOWSKI stated that it is her understanding that
the attempt the sponsor made, in terms of getting the resolution
through statutorily, was rather tortuous, and ended up with a
product that was not feasible. She noted that there was some
concern expressed that it cannot be done statutorily because there
was some opposition from those within the department and the
administration. Her indication is that the administration
recognize the benefits and merits of pursuing this and are willing
to work with the sponsor and subcommittee to make it happen. She
said, "Because it is such a major step, though, in terms of how we
handle our administrative hearings, it wasn't something that my
subcommittee is able to do at this point in time. I don't think,
though, that that same resistance, if you will, or perceived
resistance is there now. I think that there is a recognition that
perhaps the system does not work as it should. ... I think that it
deserves more scrutiny and more work."
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES stated that she appreciates what
Representative Murkowski said. She believes that if the
administration cooperated, there is no reason that this could not
be done by statute. She indicated that she is encouraged by the
tone reported from the administration by Representative Murkowski.
She thinks that maybe having a constitutional amendment has made
them look a little harder, or maybe they have been persuaded in
some other way.
Number 0876
CHAIRMAN KOTT noted that from his discussion with the
administration it was suggested that they were more than willing to
sit down and craft some legislation that would attempt to satisfy
the intent of the resolution. He is concerned about "entrenching
our Constitution." He stated that a statute would have to be
passed to make this work, and he does not think putting the cart
before the horse is the way to go. It is his intent to hold the
resolution in the committee and work on the resolution during the
interim. He commented that it is not the intent to let the
resolution sit in committee without subsequent legislation going
forward.
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES stated that she would be willing to offer her
expertise on this issue.
CHAIRMAN KOTT indicated that he does not want anyone in the
administration to think that the resolution is "D.O.A" [dead on
arrival] to this committee. He stated that he would like to have
one shot to work on the resolution in order to give it a legitimate
chance to pass.
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT said, "I was here when the statutory version
by the same sponsor as this resolution came before us. And, I
mean, it was this committee, in its prior form, saw enough problems
with it that we didn't think it should go forward. It has serious
flaws that the sponsor never rectified, never corrected. I've
before had the experience of driving down the road and rolling down
the window and telling somebody they've got a flat tire and having
them be pissed off at me. I mean, the administration just pointed
out the problems that were in the bill, and that's their job. It
is not the administration that killed this bill, the Judiciary
Committee killed this bill because it had-last year's
bill-[be]cause it had serious flaws that were never corrected, and
this year I think the Judiciary Committee has appropriate concerns
about this all-or-nothing approach. ... There's never been a
governor's veto of a statute, it's never gotten that far [be]cause
it's never been put in any kind of form that approached reasonable.
It is an extremely time-consuming process to do this right, to try
and do it in a blanket approach. You end up with huge, unintended
consequences; some of which are obvious, some which take a long
time to figure out. ... We may end up, after doing this all
session, or all interim, with the conclusion that there isn't any
significant savings to be had [be]cause the numbers of places that
we do this are so small that you're accumulating small. ... Putting
in our constitution, a directive to do what we have the power to do
now, but allowing us to not do it if we decide not to, is simply,
in my mind, ridiculous."
Number 1271
CHAIRMAN KOTT stated that maybe no savings will be found.
REPRESENTATIVE MURKOWSKI said she was glad that the committee is
willing to undertake this throughout the interim and look at just
those issues. She stated that the items Representative Croft
mentioned are exactly accurate. It is her opinion that there are
very serious and substantial flaws with the resolution. She hopes
the committee considers the concept during the interim, not whether
or not there is a joint resolution coming forward. She appreciates
that Representative Ogan has kept the issue in the forefront.
CHAIRMAN KOTT added that he also applauds Representative Ogan's
attempt. He believes it is a great concept that needs to be
furthered.
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES agrees that this is the way to go. She feels,
without cooperation and help from the administration, that changes
cannot be made. She would also like to fit dispute resolution into
the process in order to have it as the first opportunity, and, if
that does not resolve anything, then have it go on to a hearing
officer. She stated that her goal is to create a better
relationship between the agencies and the public, and what the
public does.
CHAIRMAN KOTT stated that it would be taken into consideration.
Number 1481
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG stated that he does not entirely agree with
the diagnoses of the "death" of this resolution last year. He
believes from discussions with the sponsor that it was as much the
administration's reluctance to further work on the issue as much as
anything else.
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT said, "The administration has no seat on this
committee. I mean, the committee decided from the (indisc.), and
I asked the sponsor then and I'll ask him again this, 'What
questions hasn't the administration, ... or whoever, answered on
behalf?' Last year when I asked him that, it was, 'None, but we
just don't think they like it.' Of course they didn't like it. We
didn't like it. It didn't work, but that's not their fault. I
guess he wanted them to rewrite the bill, ... They didn't do that,
but they did say, I mean, clearly on the record, where the problems
areas were, and what to do with it. ... I will ask again, 'What
questions haven't been answered?' I think they have been, and I
think it's just, it's a very difficult, time-consuming area to do
right, and it has not been done right to date."
Number 1562
CHAIRMAN KOTT said if the resolution had ended up in the House
Judiciary Standing Committee they could have moved it out if the
votes were there. He is not sure about the details, but it is
obvious to him that there must have been a problem or some concerns
by some of the committee members.
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES stated that the best way to provide a working
piece of legislation is for "us to sit on the committee, and have
the administration out there, and we have this interchange." She
indicated that this did not happen last year, and that this year
the administration was not interested in having anything move
forward. She feels that if there is a change of heart now, she is
excited.
CHAIRMAN KOTT indicated that the bill would be held over for
further consideration.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|