Legislature(2001 - 2002)
02/26/2002 03:37 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 37-CONST AM: HIRING FREEZE
SENATOR PETE KELLY introduced the resolution as a way to reduce
state spending. He said, "It's very difficult for us to force the
executive branch to engage in what is considered by most people
to be a fairly simple and common sense response to budget
problems. This constitutional amendment is designed to do just
that. It gives the Legislature the authority to require the
executive branch, through resolution, to initiate a hiring
freeze."
The Legislature would pass a resolution, which would enact a
statute and the governor would then be directed toward that
statute to begin a hiring freeze. The framework for that
resolution would be worked out by the next Legislature after this
constitutional amendment is passed.
CHAIRMAN THERRIAULT referred to the exception for temporary
emergency positions needed for health and safety and asked who
makes that determination and what constitutes health and safety.
SENATOR KELLY replied the Constitutional Amendment does not
directly speak to those issues. We have a resolution that one
might consider a sample resolution that we heard up in finance
today that talks about health and safety. The Constitutional
Amendment doesn't do that and, I think the sponsor statement is
probably in error to bring up that specific thing regarding this
constitutional amendment."
SENATOR THERRIAULT said it would then apply to all general funded
positions.
SENATOR KELLY said it could. The Legislature would make those
determinations as needed.
CHAIRMAN THERRIAULT asked for verification that a concurrent
resolution requires a simple majority in both house.
SENATOR KELLY agreed.
CHAIRMAN THERRIAULT asked the administration's representative to
testify.
C
ANNALEE MCONNELL, Director of the Office of Management & Budget,
said it is her understanding that the reasoning behind the
proposal is that some in the Legislature feel that it is
unconstitutional to require a hiring freeze because of the
separation of powers. Therefore, it would be necessary to go to
the voters to allow the Legislature to be the body that
determines whether there will be a hiring freeze or not.
One of the issues this raises is whether this kind of function
makes sense in the Constitution because it is not very specific
on purpose about how particular programs should be administered.
The Legislature has the power to make appropriations but
recognizes that the execution or management of programs requires
some flexibility within an administration.
Although the resolution is being presented as a response to the
fiscal gap, the administration does not believe this is the best
response to that issue. There is already difficulty in filling
positions in many areas of state government because of
competition with the federal government and the private sector
and every position is not filled today. Looking to the
Legislature to decide what a hiring freeze should look like would
place them in the administration's current difficult position of
having to decide which positions are critical for maintaining
public safety functions.
The Legislature does have the option to suggest changes to
statutes that are on the books as a means of cutting the budget.
This type of budget cutting would generate healthy discussions
about taking the state out of the business of providing
particular programs and services and provide the public the
opportunity to express their views on the importance of
particular services. Putting something of this sort in the
constitution as a way of forcing the administration to do a
hiring freeze is an awkward maneuver.
The specifics of a hiring freeze are a more appropriate topic for
the Finance Committee, but she wondered whether this is necessary
to put into the Constitution because there are other ways to make
budget cuts more directly if that in fact is the goal. Governors
have done hiring freezes on their own initiative in both 1999 and
1986 when there were precipitous drops in revenues and without a
constitutional amendment.
CHAIRMAN THERRIAULT agreed that the Legislature controls the
budget, but once it is passed they have little control. If there
is a drastic reduction in revenue part way through that fiscal
year, they want the administration to carry some of that money
forward to the next fiscal year, they have no power to direct
that action. They can eliminate programs and make statutory
changes as well as passing an amendment to the budget but all
these are subject to a governor's veto. It is because of this
lack of direct control over the budget once it is passed that
makes this attractive.
C
MS. MCONNELL thought the provisions that currently exist do
allow the Legislature to cut the budget mid year. It is true that
the veto could be overridden, but that is a function of the basic
system that says if the Legislature passes a measure and the
governor vetoes it, then that veto may be overridden by a three
quarters vote of the entire Legislature. This is a much more
direct approach and puts the responsibility for the decisions
about which areas should be funded on the Legislature, which is
the arm that has the appropriation power. A hiring freeze doesn't
necessarily affect the fiscal gap. Cutting a federally funded
project does not help with the fiscal gap and neither does
cutting a position at the Fairbanks or Anchorage International
Airports.
The Legislature can change specific parts of the budget and
evaluate whether it is a wise action in terms of the services
that are needed because the administration would be able to tell
the Legislature what the impact would be for any cut proposal.
This is a good reciprocal process for determining whether a cut
should be made and if so, where. A hiring freeze is an across the
board cut that doesn't distinguish between life safety or not.
In prior years when the administration has proposed certain areas
for budget cuts they have not been acceptable. Closing DOT/PF
maintenance stations or letting roads melt open rather than
plowing are examples. Such changes are better addressed
individually so the impact on services can be evaluated.
CHAIRMAN THERRIAULT replied that the current system allows for
the Legislature to make changes but it is a system where a simple
majority increases spending but there must be a super majority to
make any kind of reduction.
He asked whether she thought the proposed language for the
resolution and the amendment has enough flexibility for the
Legislature to tailor the hiring freeze to the immediate
circumstance.
C
MS. MCONNELL replied that if she were reading the amendment as a
citizen she would assume that it meant all vacancies. There could
be statutes that say differently, but it seems that even a
statute that addresses an across the board hiring freeze is still
not getting at the specific issues of whether it helps the fiscal
gap or whether it goes to the places that the Legislature feels
that money should not be spent. In the Department of Labor there
are some general funded positions in the research section that do
the work that is necessary to get the federal funds. There are
about $550 million in funds in the budget that come from the
federal government and are dependent on population and formulas.
If a position is frozen and accurate data cannot be produced, the
state's share of federal formula programs is put in jeopardy.
Another example is worker compensation hearings. The Legislature
agreed that it was taking too long to get a worker compensation
hearing so another position was added in last year's budget. That
person was hired but another hearing officer is now leaving. If
that vacancy is not filled, the changes made last year were for
naught.
If the Legislature believes there are ways that the
administration should be holding back on spending, a more
strategic way of doing that is by taking specific actions in the
budget. Although it would take a super majority to override a
governor's veto, the Legislature has that same obligation now
when the budget is formulated. It should not be easier to cut the
budget than to establish it in the first place. The same goes for
budget amendments; there is not a different threshold for budget
amendments or supplemental budgets than for the original budget.
CHAIRMAN THERRIAULT noted that the fiscal note was the standard
note for anything that goes onto the ballot.
There was no additional testimony. There was no committee
substitute and no amendments.
He asked for the will of the committee.
SENATOR PHILLIPS made a motion to move SJR 37 and attached fiscal
note from committee with individual recommendations.
There being no objection, SJR 37 moved from committee.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|