Legislature(1999 - 2000)
01/28/1999 03:29 PM Senate STA
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
SJR 3-REPEAL OF REGULATIONS BY LEGISLATURE
SENATOR ROBIN TAYLOR, sponsor of SJR 3, stated SJR 3 is not a new
concept; it has been voted on by the people of Alaska three times.
The separation of powers established in the Constitution has,
unfortunately, created a turf battle between the Governor's Office
and the Legislature. The executive branch writes regulations to
carry out the law, however the Legislature sees some of those
regulations as a distortion of the law. The Legislature's only
recourse in such situations is to change the enabling statute
itself. The Alaska Administrative Code is a very complex network
of rules of law, and the public is frustrated that state government
is involving itself in all aspects of people's lives. SJR 3 allows
the public to amend the Constitution so that the Legislature can
pass a simple resolution requiring a majority vote of each house to
repeal regulations that are inconsistent with its enabling statute.
SENATOR MACKIE questioned what will happen to a particular program,
or whatever is being regulated, when the Legislature repeals the
regulations it operates by. He asked whether the program will be
suspended until the Administration writes new regulations, and what
will happen if the Legislature disagrees with the new regulations.
Number 516
SENATOR PHILLIPS recalled that the Department of Environmental
Conservation (DEC) adopted a regulation dealing with water quality
control in the early 1980's. Former Senator Ziegler introduced a
resolution regarding those regulations which DEC promptly changed.
He suggested that the mere introduction of the resolution will
prompt similar action.
SENATOR MACKIE repeated his concern about what will happen to a
program after regulations are repealed.
SENATOR TAYLOR responded departments can impose emergency
regulations and do so frequently. He noted the Department of Fish
and Game opens and closes most fisheries by emergency regulation.
He thought debate about the impact that a repeal of regulations
would have could be healthy. He assumed each resolution would
contain language suggesting how the problem could be corrected.
Number 548
SENATOR PHILLIPS said he has seen the introduction of resolutions
prompt changes in regulations over a dozen times.
SENATOR MACKIE asked why the Legislature no longer has the ability
to repeal regulations.
SENATOR PHILLIPS explained the Supreme Court decided in the Lie
(ph) case that the Legislature can only change regulations through
a bill that has three readings, not through a resolution.
SENATOR MACKIE asked if that is why a constitutional amendment is
required.
SENATOR PHILLIPS said that is correct. He noted that although he
intends to support SJR 3, he does not believe the public
understands its impact, as it has been voted down three times.
Number 561
SENATOR ELTON discussed three concerns he has with the legislation.
He felt the process to repeal a regulation will be much less
rigorous than the process it takes to adopt a regulation which
involves all segments of Alaskans. He expressed concern that SJR
3 could create instability for a person starting a business who
must rely on stable regulations to develop a business plan.
Additionally, the regulatory web is complex, therefore repeal of
one regulation could have a ripple effect on others. Finally, he
expressed concern that SJR 3 does not require the Legislature to
outline the problems with the repealed regulation so that it can be
rewritten satisfactorily.
TAPE 98-1, SIDE B
Number 000
SENATOR TAYLOR responded the only choice the Legislature has at
this point is to change the statute on which many regulations are
based, even though 90 percent of the regulations are satisfactory.
He felt that action would be very disruptive to a department's
operations and the Legislature has seldom acted to change
regulations for that reason.
SENATOR TAYLOR did not believe passage of SJR 3 would cause
instability for new businesses, because a problem regulation is
usually only in place for one or two years before the public
becomes aware of its impact. He added the rigorous public process
that is in place to adopt a regulation is "a joke." The
bureaucracy writes the regulation, gives public notice, and those
who have the time and inclination to follow the process write or
testify at a public hearing, yet the adopted regulation does not
reflect any of the testimony provided.
SENATOR PHILLIPS asked if the type of resolution should be
specified on page 1, line 8.
SENATOR TAYLOR replied it was left as a simple resolution so that
each house could introduce and pass them separately.
Number 535
SENATOR PHILLIPS expressed concern that opponents of this measure
will look for a legal technicality to keep this measure off the
ballot.
SENATOR TAYLOR stated that language difference is the only change
from previous bills that have passed. He said his intent was to
make it as easy as possible for the state's policy-making body to
establish what the policy is. He added he had no objection to
specifying what type of resolution is required.
SENATOR PHILLIPS said under the existing system, the Governor can
veto a bill that repeals regulations and he would most likely be
advised to do so by his department heads.
Number 497
SENATOR TAYLOR informed committee members the Independent
Businesses of Alaska did a poll of its 3,000+ membership asking
whether the Legislature should be given authority to repeal
regulations found to be improper or inconsistent with the law.
Survey results reported 73 percent were in favor, 15 percent were
opposed, and 12 percent were undecided. Regulation review and
change is a top priority of the Alaska Chamber of Commerce.
SENATOR ELTON expressed concern that on line 6, the process used to
make the finding is not defined. He thought it was misleading and
that simply saying the Legislature can repeal regulations with a
finding would be adequate.
SENATOR MACKIE disagreed that the language is misleading because
the Legislature will have to hold hearings to make the finding.
SENATOR TAYLOR said his concern with that provision was that the
finding should be embodied within the resolution.
Number 454
PAM LABOLLE, President of the Alaska State Chamber of Commerce,
stated regulatory reform is the Chamber's second priority, second
only to fiscal planning. The Chamber has supported the concept of
SJR 3 for several years now. The body that makes the laws should
have the authority to repeal regulations that do not carry out the
legislative intent. This ballot issue failed to pass because of
the way it was put forth and because of confusion over the
separation of powers. The Chamber is committed to informing the
public if SJR 3 is on the ballot again.
SENATOR MACKIE moved SJR 3 from committee with individual
recommendations and then withdrew his motion.
SENATOR ELTON offered an amendment to page 1, line 9, to insert a
new sentence to read:
The resolution shall explain why the Legislature finds the
regulation inconsistent with its enabling statute.
Number 381
SENATOR TAYLOR opposed the amendment because he believed it was
redundant.
SENATOR ELTON stated it is often difficult to determine legislative
intent from committee hearings because all sides of an issue might
be presented. If the resolution states why the Legislature
believes the regulation is inconsistent, the agency that has to
redraft it will understand the problem.
SENATOR MACKIE added that statutes do not contain intent language,
and that most resolutions contain a findings section.
SENATOR TAYLOR repeated the Legislature can only repeal a
regulation after finding that it is inconsistent with its enabling
statute, therefore the resolution will have to contain a findings
provision stating the reasons for the inconsistency.
SENATOR ELTON withdrew his amendment.
Number 362
SENATOR PHILLIPS suggested changing line 6 to read, "The
Legislature may, after a stated finding that a...."
After further discussion, SENATOR ELTON offered to work with the
sponsor.
SENATOR MACKIE moved SJR 3 from committee with individual
recommendations. SENATOR ELTON objected. The motion carried with
Senators Mackie, Phillips, and Ward voting "Yea," and Senator Elton
voting "Nay."
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|