Legislature(1999 - 2000)
02/02/1999 09:00 AM Senate FIN
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
SENATE BILL NO. 49
"An Act relating to missions and measures to be
applied to certain expenditures by the executive
branch of state government and the University of
Alaska from the state operating budget for the fiscal
year ending June 30, 1999; and providing for an
effective date."
Co-chair Torgerson called SB 49, sponsored by the Senate
Finance Committee.
Senator Parnell explained SB 49 for the committee. It is
believed missions, measures and results should be clearly
defined for each department in order to assure
governmental results were to the satisfaction of the
people. He briefly quoted from SB 76, which was passed by
the Legislature and signed into law by the Governor last
year. He then referred to a Texas budget, Department of
Public Safety, 1995, using this as an example and explained
how results were obtained. (This was done with the use of
an overhead projector.) The next slide was from HB 325 the
Department of Health and Social Services showing portions
of missions and measures that were vetoed by the Governor
last year in order to protect the constitutional mandates.
The Governor felt the bill should not contain intent
language. Now they must decide what kind of bill to pass
and what it should contain. He suggested passage of a bill
containing measures that included dollar amounts. These
dollar amounts would reflect what had already been
appropriated.
SB 49 took all finance measures, which were negotiated last
year, and then vetoed by the Governor, and put them into
law this year for the 1999 budget. He hoped to continue
this for 2000. Senator Parnell then briefly summed up SB
49.
Senator P. Kelly asked if this was the sum total agreed
upon last year? Why not put it into the statutes?
Senator Parnell said it was the sum total from last year.
He requested Teri Kramer from Legal Services come to the
table.
Teri Kramer, Legal Services, Legislative Affairs Agency was
invited to join the committee. She said the missions and
measures could be put into the bill. It would only be
arduous to draft and there may be questions regarding
existing statutes.
Senator Adams asked what was the liability of putting
something like this into a bill if it would not be
correctly performed? He referred to section 2, page 2.
And what happens if they do not come up to full
expectations and there is a liability and challenge on each
of these? He believed this bill violated the State
Constitution and should perhaps have a judicial review.
Article 2, section 13 set out the single substance
requirement. Senator Adams felt it would not survive
judicial scrutiny.
Ms. Kramer said the single substance issue was certainly in
issue. However, it only addresses a single year of
appropriations. Courts have been generous in the past in
considering this matter. She suggested it would perhaps be
better to put it into several bills rather than lumped into
one.
Senator Parnell concurred that the Courts have been
generous in the past. Missions and measures are an
expression of legislative policy and therefore the State
would be immune to liability. It is a legislative duty to
set policy.
Senator Leman agreed with Senator Adams regarding page 2.
He felt that performance measures should only be what
ought to be acquired. With reference to page 8, line 15,
performance measures for permits.he asked what were the
workable permits issued compared to the total permits
issued. Will there be a total amount of workable permits
and another total for unworkable permits?
Senator Parnell responded. All missions and measures were
established in the subcommittees and are in rough form.
They were only a reflection of what was passed last year.
Senator Leman asked what does "workable permit" mean.
Senator Parnell said Ms. Kramer would have to respond.
Senator Adams referred to missions and measures that we
presently have and indicated that they were not
accomplished as they should. He said, "Perhaps we should
get away from the single substance issue."
Ms. Kramer said she didn't feel there was any liability
under single substance. She did not know what the
Legislature intended if a department did not accomplish its
measures.
Senator Parnell responded that if an agency did not
accomplish its measures then they would either do away with
the program or cut it back, or the agency would convince
the Legislature they needed more money to perform the
specific duty. He said the bill was only an expression of
policy and that the Legislature was immune to liability.
Senator Adams asked about the public or constituency
feeling that the missions and measures were not being
fulfilled? The public would like to see an accomplishment.
Senator Parnell agreed and said that the Legislature was
acting as a representative of the people in holding the
departments responsible.
Senator P. Kelly reiterated the key to the missions and
measures as discussed last year. The agencies did not have
much objection, if any, to them. There were some technical
problems and if departments and agencies could not agree
then they were held over. There was going to be some
failure, which would assist in getting a handle on what was
expected of the agency. He felt this interaction was good.
Senator Parnell said for years the executive branch had put
performance measures into their detail books but had never
been held accountable, nor did they really know what was in
the detail books. In referring to the Executive Budget Act
he said results could not be put into the budget itself.
Senator Donley said measures should be put in the budget
documents as in other states. "We are trying to get more
efficiency in State government so people see the result of
their money." By use of his veto power the Governor took
out some good measures. Most of the departments had agreed
to the measures he later vetoed.
Jack Kreinheder, Senior Policy Analyst, Office of
Management and Budget was invited to join the committee.
He said they supported the bill in concept and appreciated
the opportunity to work with the committee in the drafting
of the bill. It would be preferable to have some clearer
wording in the bill, however.
In response to Senator Phillips, Mr. Kreinheder responded
and used Y2K as an example. A mandatory statement by the
Legislature regarding missions and measures could be a
problem.
Senator Parnell asked if the Administration had any other
problems with any other section other than Y2K?
Mr. Kreinheder said they had not done a comprehensive
review. The Attorney General's office had done some. Y2K
popped out because it was a "hot potato". Many of the
other measures do not have a target, rather have a
baseline. He is not aware of others that may raise
pressing legal problems. This bill applies to current year
but there were concerns to get it adopted quickly. The
Administration was taking this seriously and departments
were working on enhancing these measures. It would be
preferable for the departments to work with the
subcommittees to fine-tune the measures.
Senator Parnell said he anticipated the subcommittees would
do this but felt they needed the support of the bill. It
would then be a potential vehicle for the year 2000.
Mr. Kreinheder said they did not have any legal opinion
regarding this bill. He spoke with Jim Baldwin along with
a few others that had looked at the bill but he noted that
no immunity for the State had been discussed. He said a
reasonable level of compliance should be reached. Targets
for litigation should be set if it were to be a compliance
requirement. In response to Senator Parnell he said they
felt the State could be held liable.
Senator Donley suggested adding an amendment that would
read: "The State could not be held liable for anything
contained herein."
Senator Phillips said he thought the State was looking for
perfection. Therefore a standard of excellence should be
set up and measured against. Perfection is not going to
happen. Department of Law was going to have to work with
the Legislature and this bill was a good start. People
want to know if they are getting their money's worth.
Senator Kelly said he knew there was going to be a problem
with Y2K. He asked if they were compliant?
Senator Parnell said Y2K was under mission critical. Co-
chair Torgerson concurred.
Senator Parnell further explained that one hundred percent
of mission critical was covered by disaster recovery
program. He also advised the committee that there were a
host of other Y2K problems.
Senator P. Kelly reiterated his concern for the Y2K issue.
There will still be problems because everything cannot be
anticipated.
Co-chair Torgerson felt that the Office of Management and
Budget was trying to delay the bill. They want to have
words in there that have no accountability.
Mr. Kreinheder said it was not their intent to hold the
bill up. He was also not going to argue on the one hundred
percent compliance for the Y2K problem. The Department of
Law can address the other questions raised. Some
redrafting would make it clear that the bill was an
expression of policy by the Legislature.
Senator Adams did not feel that the Office of Management
and Budget was trying to hold up the bill, rather they were
only suggesting rewording.
Senator Parnell referred to Amendment #1. Accountability,
he said, rests back here. He then requested the bill be
held over until Thursday. He will work with Legislative
Legal, Senator Donley and the Administration on more
specific language. Perhaps that would help solve the saber
rattling.
Senator Adams voiced concern on the single substance issue.
He wanted a memorandum on that.
Senator Parnell agreed to seek to clarify the single
substance issue.
Suzanne Tryck, WWAMI Coordinator joined the committee by
teleconference from Anchorage. She said she had no
comments to make regarding the bill but would be happy to
answer any questions.
Co-chair Torgerson SET ASIDE SB 49 until Thursday.
He then called SB 3.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|