Legislature(2003 - 2004)
04/29/2003 08:06 AM House STA
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
HJR 4-CONST AM: 90 DAY LEGISLATIVE SESSION Number 0726 CHAIR WEYHRAUCH announced that the next order of business was HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 4, Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the State of Alaska relating to the duration of a regular session. Number 0703 REPRESENTATIVE HOLM moved to adopt the proposed committee substitute (CS) for HJR 4, Version 23-LS0178\D, Cook, 3/28/03, as a work draft. Number 0676 REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG objected for purposes of discussion. CHAIR WEYHRAUCH invited visiting students to come sit in the committee room. He asked Representative Samuels to give a summary of HJR 4 for their benefit. Number 0600 REPRESENTATIVE RALPH SAMUELS, Alaska State Legislature, sponsor, explained that HJR 4 would shorten the legislative session from 120 to 90 days in length. He noted that an argument against the resolution says it would give more power to the executive branch. He also noted that an argument supporting the resolution is that it would save [the state] money and make [the legislature] work more efficiently. In response to the comments of Chair Weyhrauch, he confirmed that this type of resolution has been introduced before and that the legislature, at one time, was unlimited in its length. Number 0490 SARAH NEILSON, Staff to Representative Ralph Samuels, in response to a question from Chair Weyhrauch, confirmed that 1984 was the year in which the voters voted on a constitutional amendment limiting the session to 120 days. Number 0470 REPRESENTATIVE SAMUELS noted the following changes that would be made to HJR 4 by Version D: the effective date, as shown on page 2 of the CS; and a raise from 90 to 110 days [during the first session year] when a new governor takes office, because new commissioners and staff are hired. CHAIR WEYHRAUCH asked how [Version D] would treat a possible situation where a governor serves more than one term, but not consecutively. REPRESENTATIVE SAMUELS said that the intent would be to give 110 days to [a governor who returns to office, after a gap where someone else served]. He clarified that 110 days would be given every time there is a change of administration. A governor who is re-elected consecutively would not get the 110 days. Number 0194 REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ asked if there is a provision in statute for special election of a governor. For example, what would happen if a governor decided to take another position and the lieutenant governor was elevated? Would there be a special election? REPRESENTATIVE SAMUELS said that he is not sure of the answer, but guessed that there would be no special election, because the lieutenant governor would become governor and would serve the remainder of the term. REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ stated that when an incumbent governor is running for re-election, in essence it [would] become a campaign issue [if Version D was adopted], because the legislative session [could] be shortened by re-electing the incumbent governor. Number 0115 CHAIR WEYHRAUCH referred to the previously stated example where the lieutenant governor takes over. He asked if the session after the session during which he/she had taken over would be 90 or 110 days. Number 0051 REPRESENTATIVE SAMUELS said the 110 days would only apply to an entirely new administration, not just a new governor. When a lieutenant governor steps into the governor's position, all the commissioners would remain the same. TAPE 03-46, SIDE A Number 0001 CHAIR WEYHRAUCH asked if it wouldn't be cleaner to say, "There was an election of governor. It's a new governor. Now it's 110 days." REPRESENTATIVE SAMUELS noted that when an incumbent is running for governor, no one [involved in the legislative session] would know whether to make arrangements for 90 or 110 days. He suggested that if the first session only was 110 days, whether or not it's the incumbent who wins the gubernatorial race, he said he still thinks that would accomplish the goal of the legislative branch becoming more efficient. Number 0148 CHAIR WEYHRAUCH stated that it is important to be as clear as possible when addressing proposed changes to the constitution. He pointed out that the word "election" is used [in Version D], not the words "administration change". CHAIR WEYHRAUCH proffered that inserting the word "immediately" between "office" and "before", on page 2, line 3, would suit the sponsor's intent. Number 0260 REPRESENTATIVE SEATON referred to the previous comments of Representative Berkowitz regarding 110 days for a new governor and 90 days for an incumbent. He said he thinks that would build an inequity into the system. He offered the [Conceptual Amendment 1] as follows: Page 2, line 2, after "governor" Delete "who was not serving in that office before the election," REPRESENTATIVE SAMUELS said, "Yes, as long as, on line 4, you put 'gubernatorial election'. ... Every time there's a gubernatorial election, the first session after the election would be 110 [days]." In response to a remark by Chair Weyhrauch, he confirmed that it would not matter whether or not the incumbent [won the race]. That way, he said, as Representative Berkowitz pointed out, "it becomes a moot point on the political issue during an election, during a campaign." He added that that would probably be a smart way to go. REPRESENTATIVE SAMUELS, in response to the request of Chair Weyhrauch, said he thought [the word "that" on page 2, line 4, should be replaced by] "any gubernatorial". Number 0480 REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ commented on [subsection (b), on page 2 of Version D] as follows: If you think a 90-day [session] ought to be the rule, then 90 days ought to be the rule. And when you're carving out exceptions, it's an acknowledgment that 90 days is an inadequate length of time. Different administrations are going to come into power with -- well, I mean, some of them are going to lollygag around, some of them are going to hit the ground running, some of them are going to know exactly what they're going to do, some of them aren't. But if you're using 90 days as an incentive for the legislature to get its act together, then the 90 days ought to be considered an incentive for the governor - whether it's a new governor, or an existing governor - to get his or her administration together. And so, it seems to me [subsection (b)] ought to be removed in its entirety. If we're going to 90 days, let's go to 90 days - let's not pussyfoot around. You look at what other states do; I don't think they make that exception. Number 0533 REPRESENTATIVE SAMUELS stated that he respectfully disagrees. He continued as follows: If you don't want it to become the political issue at all, and you do not want to be hurrying either ourselves or a new governor - and particularly a new governor - ... the 100-day session ... gives everybody a chance. As we all know, the entire job is based around relationships - with each other, with the administration, with the administration officials, with the public - it's all based around relationships. And that would give you a little bit more time, a little bit more leeway to build the relationship with what, in essence, is going to be an entire new cast of characters. Number 0588 REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ responded that that would be true, then, for the first session of any legislative period. He noted that he has not served with any of [the committee members] before. He asked, "Shouldn't I have the benefit of at least 110 days, assuming this wasn't a gubernatorial election, to get to know you better ...?" Number 0644 CHAIR WEYHRAUCH stated that it's a "philosophic point." He brought the committee's attention back to Representative Seaton's [Conceptual Amendment 1]. Number 0674 REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG said his recollection is that there is no provision for a special election of a governor. If the governor is unable to serve, the lieutenant governor serves, and the lieutenant governor then designates a new person to be the lieutenant governor, "if they step up." Number 0752 REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ replied that if there's a constitutional flow from the governor to the lieutenant governor, that's one thing, but if it's done statutorily, there's always a possibility that statutes could change, in which case there could be a special election to fill "a period of a governor's seat." He said that that's why he thinks it would be important "for us to have a definitive answer on that front." He said when something is written in the constitution, it's forever, whereas statutes change with 21 votes in the House and 11 in the Senate. Regarding the constitution, he said he thinks there are clear reasons to use concise language that is universal in its application. He said, "We ought to be very clear on this point about succession and whether it's done statutorily or constitutionally." Number 0824 REPRESENTATIVE LYNN said he wonders in earnest how many of the 120 days in session are spent in at-ease periods, or deliberately delaying a known outcome so "we can all stand up and showboat on something." He said that perhaps limiting the amount of time the legislature is in session would help solve that problem. Number 0892 REPRESENTATIVE SAMUELS, at the request of Chair Weyhrauch, read [subsection (b)] as it would read with the proposed [Conceptual Amendment 1], as follows: (b) Notwithstanding (a) of this section, the first regular session held after each gubernatorial election is limited to one hundred ten consecutive calendar days. The session may be extended as provided in (a) of this section. CHAIR WEYHRAUCH asked if there was any objection to the motion to adopt Conceptual Amendment 1. There being no objection, Conceptual Amendment 1 was adopted. CHAIR WEYHRAUCH noted that Representative Gruenberg's objection to adopt the proposed committee substitute (CS) for HJR 4, Version 23-LS0178\D, Cook, 4/29/03, as a work draft, is still pending. REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG withdrew his objection. [Version D was treated as adopted.] Number 1025 REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ moved to adopt Amendment 2 to delete Section 2, [page 1, line 16 through page 2, line 5]. He said he does not find the arguments for a 90-day session to be compelling, but if it will be done for the legislature [it should be done] for the governor. He said that the governor has the ability to extend session and if that is done, "the onus then is on the governor, not on the legislature." He continued as follows: We don't need to change or set up a different scheme. When you do this, you deviate from one of, I think, the basic rules of constitutions, which is: make things as clean and simple as possible in the constitution. Constitutions endure. This is one of the reasons why I'm the most conservative person I know in the legislature when it come to constitutional amendments. I vote against every single one of them. You don't mess with the constitution unless it's absolutely necessary. REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ opined that Section 2 makes the resolution unclear; it muddles it with extra language. He said that "some of these items can be done statutorily," including the issue of a 90-day session. [REPRESENTATIVE SEATON objected.] Number 1179 REPRESENTATIVE HOLM said that the governor is "here" for 12 months a year; therefore, a 90-day session would not have much effect. He continued as follows: I think that what we're trying to do here is to facilitate a new governor being able to pick his administrative aides, his commissioners, [et cetera]. And I'm not sure, in this case even, that ... we ... want to speed that process up too much, and I think what we're talking about here, if I'm not wrong with Representative Samuels, is that we're trying to allow the [legislature] to approve or disapprove of those commissioners after [the governor has] had enough time to ... create his own administration. So, I think there may be a cause for this that has merit. Number 1241 REPRESENTATIVE SEATON noted that a number of states have varying session length limits. He opined that the more constrained the legislature is made, the more it will rely on a seniority system and more structure, because the new legislators are not going to have the time to become "fully up and running." He stated his concern with the resolution, as well as [Amendment 2] is that "we tend to put in a power structure and make it more effective, the shorter you get to (indisc.)." Number 1327 CHAIR WEYHRAUCH remarked that Article IX, Section 16, is one of the most obtuse, unclear, and confusing articles in the [Alaska State] Constitution that he has read. A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Berkowitz and Weyhrauch voted in favor of Amendment 2. Representatives Holm, Seaton, Dahlstrom, Lynn, and Gruenberg voted against it. Therefore, Amendment 2 failed by a vote of 5-2. Number 1443 REPRESENTATIVE HOLM moved to report HJR 4, as amended, out of committee with individual recommendations and the accompanying fiscal note. REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ stated an objection. REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ spoke to his objection as follows: He stated that [HJR 4] is a constitutional amendment that requires a degree of seriousness that is not always accorded to bills. He reminded the committee of the relationship of the Founding Fathers to the constitution. The constitutional convention, he noted, involved people who deliberated over the foundational set of laws which guide "who we are and what we do." He said that [HJR 4] might not seem "huge," in and of itself, but it is completely unnecessary. He noted that if the legislature chooses to conduct its business in such a way that it is done in 90 days, "that can happen." REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ continued as follows: And so, we're tinkering in the constitution, for what reason? I've seen this resolution before us; Democrats and Republicans do it. It's ... a tennis ball ...; it plays back and forth. And nobody really wants it, but everyone has to be supportive of it, because it's popular. And that's not what the constitution is about. The whole foundation of the constitution is protecting the rights of the minority, defending the ability of people to stand up and say, "No." It's about the separation of powers. And when you go to a 90-day session ... constitutionally, what you're doing is you're abdicating legislative responsibility to the executive branch. That's wrong. REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ reiterated that that choice shouldn't be made just because it's popular. He noted that there are many unpopular items in the constitution; people want to get rid of certain things. He said the constitution should be protected. He reiterated that there is no need to make a change, and suggested that the legislature could even be done in 40 or 60 days. He added, "There's nothing that stops us, except for the legislature's own machinations." Number 1593 REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ noted that he has worked in the Alaska State Legislature for seven years under "super majorities" the entire time. He indicated that super majorities are "legislatures that should have been able to control the flow of legislation, according to their own will and dictates." The failure to do so is not a constitutional failure, he posited, but is a failure of the people in the institution. He opined that putting a constitutional stricture around [the legislation] is unnecessary and ought to be rejected. Number 1627 CHAIR WEYHRAUCH stated that he thinks the constitution is a living, breathing document that reflects fundamental issues of government, and is "of, by, and for the people." Without an amendment like [HJR 4], he opined, the legislature will never - emphasis on the word never - adjourn in a shorter period of time. He indicated that even if [HJR 4] is moved out of the House State Affairs Standing Committee, it will still undergo passionate debate in [other House committees] and in the Senate, and the issue will ultimately be brought before the public. CHAIR WEYHRAUCH pointed out that, under the provision of this resolution, the legislature would have the ability to meet for an extended time. He stated, "So, I see this ... as worthy of further movement and discussion by the people." Number 1699 REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG stated, "I would just like to associate myself with Representative Berkowitz's comments." Furthermore, he noted that there is another branch of government, which is the judiciary branch. The balance of power, he said, is a delicate one. For a while, he noted, it became vogue to have term limits. He remarked that in states such as California, [term limits] decimated the balance of power, and have caused extreme problems. He noted information regarding this issue could be obtained through the Institute of Governmental Studies at the University of California Berkley. REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG noted that some states hold legislative session every other year, or have a budget session every other year. He remarked that those are states with relatively weak legislatures. He opined that Alaska, as a young state, needs to have all its branches of government strong, particularly because the legislature is the only branch that's voted on by the people every two years. He said, "We are the popular branch, and we are the popular House in the popular branch. And we are the most responsible to the will of the people. And to emasculate this branch in this House is a real upset to the balance of power." He warned the legislature to think carefully before tinkering with the balance of power. He said that [shorter sessions] would have effects similar to the unicameral system that was once in vogue, which are: fewer public debates; more deals behind closed doors; more log jams; and less public input. REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG stated that he has great respect for the maker of [HJR 4]. However, he said, "It's a slippery slope." For example, 90 days [may become] 60 days. He indicated that one result may be that the legislature meets for a couple of days, then adjourns for a couple of weeks, and then meets again, but "you're out of touch with the public." He added, "This is not a good idea." Number 1837 REPRESENTATIVE SAMUELS stated that [HJR 4] is not a partisan issue in any form, because everyone realizes that there will be different parties in power at various times. However, he said that it's the nature of the beast that no matter how long the legislative session is stretched, the time will be filled, and the work will not be done until the very end. He indicated that every legislator present - regardless of experience in office - knows how busy he/she is currently, [compared to] the first six weeks of session. Number 1900 CHAIR WEYHRAUCH announced that the bill would not be moved today, and he stated his intention to open public testimony at the next hearing on [HJR 4]. Number 1910 REPRESENTATIVE LYNN opined that the previously stated comment regarding the constitution being a living, breathing document is more of a political philosophy than an established fact. Number 1924 REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ concurred. He noted that things do happen in the first six weeks. The additional time [for legislators] to get to know one another is one of things that happens. He said he doesn't know that that's necessarily critical, but he opined that there's other ways to solve the problem. He stated that he understands the importance of having a deadline at the end of a legislative session; that's when the work happens. He added, "You'll be astounded at just how bad and hard things go at the end." Representative Berkowitz stated, "But we could also get to that same result statutorily. We don't necessarily need to start on day one. Or we could start on day one and take a 45-day break, if that's what the legislature chose to do." He reiterated that the constitution does not need to be changed in order to effect the change trying to be made by [HJR 4]. REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ remarked that many people wouldn't change the state song, but are willing to change the constitution. Number 1978 REPRESENTATIVE HOLM stated that he would take Representative Gruenberg's comment to mean that if the Alaska State Legislature was in session all year long it would do better work. He opined that Representative Samuels is absolutely correct that if some kind of limits are not in place, [the legislature] could abuse the system at will. Regarding the long discussion of bills, he said it is a good and necessary process; however, at some point in time it gets redundant, and he thinks [the legislature] could certainly be more efficient in its work. He said he thinks that is what Representative Samuels is "trying to get at here." Number 2035 CHAIR WEYHRAUCH announced that, with the motion and objection still pending, HJR 4 would be held over.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|