Legislature(2009 - 2010)CAPITOL 106
03/23/2010 08:00 AM House STATE AFFAIRS
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB53 | |
| HCR8 | |
| HB128 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | HB 53 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | HB 284 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| *+ | HB 128 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| *+ | HCR 8 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
HCR 8-UNIFORM RULES: MEASURE SPONSORS/READINGS
[Contains discussion of HB 128.]
8:30:59 AM
CHAIR LYNN announced that the next order to business was HOUSE
CONCURRENT RESOLUTION NO. 8, Proposing amendments to the Uniform
Rules of the Alaska State Legislature relating to withdrawing
measures, to sponsors of measures, to prefiling measures, and to
the three readings of bills.
8:31:31 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON moved to adopt the proposed committee
substitute (CS), Version 26-LS0366\P, Cook, 1/29/10, as a work
draft.
CHAIR LYNN objected for discussion purposes.
8:33:09 AM
TIM MADSEN, Staff, Representative Max Gruenberg, Alaska State
Legislature, explained the proposed changes to HCR 8 that are in
Version P. The first change, he related, occurs in Section
2(b), on page 2, lines 18-23, where the terms prefiled bills and
bills have been changed to prefiled measures and measures,
respectively. He noted the same change occurs on page 3, line
6.
8:34:14 AM
CHAIR LYNN removed his objection to the motion to adopt the
proposed committee substitute (CS), Version 26-LS0366\P, Cook,
1/29/10, as work draft. There being no further objection,
Version P was before the committee.
8:34:52 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG, sponsor, related that the intent of
the bill is to provide a vehicle for legislators to put forth
ideas regarding how to improve the way the legislature works.
He said the structure of the legislature is found in statute and
in Uniform Rules. The proposed resolution addresses the Uniform
Rules. He reminded committee members that it takes a two-thirds
vote in both the Senate and House to adopt a concurrent
resolution. He said he is not in a rush to move HCR 8, and
suggested that a forum could take place over the interim, at
which time the members of the legislature could be polled to see
what they would like to see in the resolution. Then, he said,
the resolution could be brought back next year.
8:37:15 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG directed attention to a sectional
analysis included in the committee packet. He said Section 1
concerns the withdrawing of measures and would amend Rule 27(b).
He explained that a measure could be a bill or resolution. He
offered his understanding that under current law, a measure can
be withdrawn by its sponsor even after passing the other body,
"if it comes back for concurrence." He said there are other
options, such as voting the measure down, keeping it in the
limbo file, assigning a conference committee, or refusing to
concur, but he opined that it is unfair to be allowed to
withdraw the measure at that late date, because that "divests
the other house of any ability to, for example, recede from its
amendment."
CHAIR LYNN asked if "this situation" has ever actually happened.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG answered that he does not know.
8:40:45 AM
TAM COOK, Director, Legislative Legal and Research Services,
Legislative Affairs Agency, recalled that that type of motion
has been made. In one or two cases, the House has declined to
allow the sponsor to withdraw the bill, and in a couple of other
cases negotiations were made so that someone else stepped
forward and agreed to carry the bill. She said she cannot
recollect a time when the bill was actually withdrawn, but she
said it may have happened.
CHAIR LYNN asked Ms. Cook, "Is it feasible, could it be done,
and would you think that'd be an appropriate thing to do or
not?"
MS. COOK answered as follows:
I think it's probably appropriate that it be done.
What ... this would do is prevent placing the body in
the awkward circumstance of having to deal with a
member who wishes to withdraw the bill.
MS. COOK said usually someone will withdraw sponsorship and
someone else will step in as sponsor. She continued as follows:
The downside from the point of view of individual
legislators, of course, is that some legislators may
feel so unhappy with what the second house does to a
bill, that they actually are trying to remove the bill
as a vehicle. This ... approach that Representative
Gruenberg is suggesting, would prevent that
possibility.
CHAIR LYNN said a legislator can always choose to vote no on a
concurrence vote.
MS. COOK affirmed that is true. She said in her experience, the
House has been incredibly lenient about allowing people to
withdraw as sponsors rather than withdrawing the bill.
CHAIR LYNN surmised that the debate is whether HCR 8 would be a
better policy than current policy.
8:43:59 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON said hypothetically there may be a bill
that was totally stripped by the other body and filled with text
with which the sponsor does not want to be associated. Under
the proposed concurrent resolution, the sponsor would no longer
have the option to withdraw the measure.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG said there would still be the option of
asking the majority leader to keep the measure in the limbo
file.
CHAIR LYNN remarked that that would be effective only if the
majority leader thought it was a good idea. He said, "So, if
that would happen to me, for example, ... I could totally
divorce myself from the bill and not have it go out in the
public that I sponsored this bill that I'm totally opposed to."
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG responded that is correct.
8:45:26 AM
REPRESENTATIVE PETERSEN proffered that the decision to be made
is whether it is better to allow one member enough power to
withdraw a bill that has been passed by both houses or to allow
that member to take his/her name off a measure, while still
allowing the measure an opportunity for concurrence or final
passage.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG confirmed that is correct.
CHAIR LYNN indicated that the proposed legislation may be a good
idea.
REPRESENTATIVE PETERSEN responded, "I think it probably is."
8:46:14 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON said he thinks the proposed legislation
merely clarifies what is already being done. Once a bill is out
of one body and in another, the first body cannot withdraw it.
He said the only time it could be withdrawn is when it returns
to the original body, at which point members are afforded the
opportunity to change sponsorship.
CHAIR LYNN said the proposed legislation would guarantee the
courtesy.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON said the proposed legislation does not
mandate sponsorship removal, but he reiterated that that is a
courtesy that has generally been extended.
CHAIR LYNN commented that sometimes courtesies might have to be
enforced.
8:48:16 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG suggested expanding the proposed
legislation from a "measure in possession of the house of
origin" to a measure that has been voted on by the full body or
passed by the full body.
8:50:26 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON said he does not want to see that language
expanded. He said a member does not get to withdraw a bill;
he/she can make a motion to withdraw a bill, and then there must
be consent through a vote of that house to withdraw the bill.
He stated, "If the House doesn't want to void their vote, then
they wouldn't withdraw the bill. So, I think the protections
are already built into the language as it is."
8:50:56 AM
REPRESENTATIVE PETERSEN asked what current rules a legislator
must follow if he/she no longer wishes to sponsor a bill.
8:51:26 AM
MS. COOK said this issue is only obliquely addressed in the
Uniform Rules. She continued as follows:
However, it's been done very often - a change of
sponsorship is what we call it - and it's been done by
... simple majority vote of the members present - the
quorum being present. Now, we do have one reference
to changing the sponsorship of a bill, and oddly
enough, it is the one amendment that can be done in
third reading, rather than it going back to second
reading. Even in third reading, the body has the
right to change, if it chooses to by majority vote,
the sponsorship of a bill. Furthermore, we've got -
in that strange little rule - a provision that before
the bill is engrossed, it can be changed as to the
sponsorship only. So, when it comes to sponsorship,
by implication the Uniform Rules are very, very broad
with respect to the ability of the body to elect to
change a sponsor.
MS. COOK, in response to Chair Lynn, said there must be a bill
sponsor; a bill cannot go forward without one. Often, a co-
sponsor will step into the sponsorship role, when the sponsor
drops out of it.
8:53:33 AM
MR. MADSEN directed attention to a proposed sentence in Section
3, on page 2, beginning on line 27, which read as follows:
Measures introduced by members must have at least one
prime sponsor or more than one joint prime sponsor,
and may have cosponsors.
MR. MADSEN indicated that the ensuing language in the section
addresses the withdrawal of names from sponsorship of
legislation.
8:54:37 AM
MS. COOK, in response to Representative Gruenberg, stated that
it is clear that the Uniform Rules contemplate that sponsors may
be changed and that a bill will have a sponsor. In response to
a follow-up question, she said it may take her a minute to find
the specific Uniform Rule.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG said he would like that in writing.
8:55:44 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG returned to Section 1, and he pointed
to language [on page 1, lines 12-14], which specifies as
follows:
Only the prime sponsor of the measure, a joint prime
sponsor of the measure with agreement of all other
joint prime sponsors, or the chair of the committee
that introduced the measure may move to withdraw it.
8:57:20 AM
MR. MADSEN directed attention to Section 2, which is explained
in the sectional analysis [included in the committee packet], as
follows [original punctuation provided]:
Section 2 deals with the prefiling of measures and
amends Rule 36. It amends the number of measures that
a member or member-elect may prefile as either the
sole prime sponsor or joint prime sponsor. According
to the current rule a member may only be the prime or
joint prime sponsor on a total of ten prefiled bills.
Under the new rule a member may be the sole prime
sponsor of ten prefiled measures, plus the joint prime
sponsor of an additional 20 measures.
8:58:36 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG stated that when bills are prefiled,
they are made available to the public and to other members of
the legislature several days before session begins, and he said
it would be a good idea to get more done in prefiling to get
things going earlier in the session when there is "not a lot of
substantive stuff going on."
9:00:39 AM
CHAIR LYNN proffered that prefiling allows the discussion to
begin between the legislature and the public, which can expedite
any amendments needed.
9:01:07 AM
REPRESENTATIVE PETERSEN questioned if this would adversely
affect the workload of Legislative Legal and Research Services.
9:01:48 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON said resolutions can be "signed right to
the floor." He said he is questioning whether [Section 2] would
be efficient or whether it would "interject a lot of emotional
things instead of ... real policies into the prefiling time."
9:03:30 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG, regarding the question of Legislative
Legal and Research Services' workload, said whether a measure is
prefiled or goes "into the hopper" on the first day of session
does not affect when the work is done, but allowing the proposed
prefiling would "encourage them to spread the work out a little
more" and allow committee chairs, who are generally named
following the November election, to start planning their
schedules.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG stated that currently there is no
requirement that a House resolution be referred to a committee,
and he said he thinks the committee should consider amending the
rules to require even House resolutions to be referred to a
standing committee.
9:06:56 AM
MR. MADSEN said Section 2 would allow members elect to request
the prefiling of measures.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG, in response to Chair Lynn, said
Section 2 would clarify that this would be allowed.
9:08:08 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON offered his understanding that it has not
been the policy that members, before being sworn in, can sponsor
a measure.
CHAIR LYNN said he thinks he did so.
9:08:37 AM
REPRESENTATIVE PETERSEN recollected that he was a joint prime
sponsor on a couple measures before being sworn in.
9:09:31 AM
MR. MADSEN said Section 2 would allow a member or a member-elect
to be the sole prime sponsor of no more than 10 measures and
joint prime sponsor of an additional 20 measures for prefiling.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG explained that currently a legislator
can have his/her name on only 10 pre-filed measures.
CHAIR LYNN asked what the reason is for limiting joint-prime
sponsorship.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON indicated that limits are necessary so
that the legislature is not inundated with bills. He opined
that 10 prefiled bills is quite a few for one legislator.
CHAIR LYNN remarked that even with prefiling, legislators still
file bills during session up until almost the end of session.
9:13:20 AM
REPRESENTATIVE PETERSEN said he believes the reason for the
limit on the number of bills that a legislator can bring forth
as prime sponsor is that it takes so much time to adequately
carry a bill through the process. However, he said he does not
understand what benefit there would be in limiting the number of
measures for which legislator may be a joint prime sponsor.
CHAIR LYNN said typically the joint prime sponsors "don't do
that much."
9:14:32 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON opined the problem is that the joint prime
sponsors legally own the bill on which their names are attached;
if they are not doing the work, they should not be joint prime
sponsors. He indicated that he has an issue with encouraging
legislators to attach their names to numerous bills by title
during pre-filing, rather than signing on to "the active bill
itself." He recollected that Representative Doogan had
previously stated that he wants to ensure there is not too much
political process. Representative Seaton warned that without a
limit on the number of bills, there could be a situation in
which a lot of bills are filed for constituents by request and
the legislator is not focusing on the most important issues.
9:16:06 AM
CHAIR LYNN asked if there are specific rules regarding
legislation requested by constituents.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG said he would find out. He mentioned a
former legislator who, during a single term, submitted 75 bills.
He said legislators could still submit that many, but not as
pre-filed measures. He questioned why the ability to be a joint
prime sponsor is limited to pre-filed measures.
CHAIR LYNN said he would like the committee to consider that.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG said being a prime sponsor, joint prime
sponsor, or co-sponsor indicates a legislator's level of
involvement.
CHAIR LYNN noted that there are also measures sponsored by
committees, and either the chair or "one very active member of
the committee" could use a committee bill to put a measure
through if he/she does not want his/her name attached for some
reason or it is past the cut-off date for submitting personal
bills.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG indicated that he encourages
legislators to seek out joint prime sponsorship.
9:19:24 AM
CHAIR LYNN said there has been some discussion related to having
a limit on the number of bills that a legislator can file. He
said he is philosophically opposed to that, because he
represents his constituents and wants to bring forth measures
when needed.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG concurred.
9:19:54 AM
MR. MADSEN directed attention to Section 3, which he said
addresses the issue of sponsorship of legislation and would
amend Uniform Rule 37(a). He highlighted the proposed new
language on page 2 line 27, through page 3, line 2, which read
as follows:
Measures introduced by members must have at least one
prime sponsor or more than one joint prime sponsor,
and may have cosponsors. After introduction, when the
measure is in the possession of the house of origin
and with approval of the prime sponsor or of all joint
prime sponsors, additional members may be added as
joint prime sponsors or as cosponsors. When the
measure is in the possession of the second house, a
member of that house may be added as cross cosponsor
with the approval of the prime sponsor or of all joint
prime sponsors.
9:20:49 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON observed that the proposed language would
mean that no one could sign up to cosponsor a measure without
the approval of the prime sponsor or all the joint prime
sponsors.
CHAIR LYNN questioned what the purpose of that would be.
9:21:50 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG responded that there is a related
amendment prepared for [HB 128], which would give the committee
a choice as to whether or not it should be necessary to get the
approval of all the [joint] prime sponsors. He suggested that
that amendment could be used for HCR 8, as well.
CHAIR LYNN recollected that he had had experience being told he
could not sign onto a bill as a cosponsor. He said he could not
recollect what the ruling on that was.
9:23:16 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON said currently in order to sign up during
prefiling as a [joint prime sponsor], a legislator must have the
okay of the prime sponsor or joint prime sponsors already signed
on to the measure. Traditionally, legislators have been allowed
to sign up as cosponsors after the measure has been introduced.
He offered his understanding that under the proposed language, a
legislator would not be allowed to sign up as a cosponsor of a
measure already introduced without the permission of the prime
sponsor or joint prime sponsor of the legislation.
9:24:22 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG said he wants to flag this language for
consideration.
9:24:54 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG directed attention to further language
that would be added to Section 3, on page 3, lines 10-12, which
read as follows:
A member may move to withdraw the member's name as
sponsor of a measure when it is in possession of the
house in which it was introduced.
MR. MADSEN, in response to Representative Gruenberg, explained
that Rule 27 addresses the withdrawal of measures, while [the
aforementioned language] address the withdrawal of sponsorship
of measures.
9:25:58 AM
MR. MADSEN directed attention to Section 4, page 3, lines 13-24,
which addresses first reading of a measure.
9:26:25 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON noted that there is a requirement [in
Section 1] that a measure may be withdrawn [before transmittal
to the other body] if consent is given by "a majority vote of
the full membership". He said the language in Section 3, page
3, lines 10-12 [text provided previously], addresses withdrawing
a sponsor, and he observed that this language does not indicate
whether approval of a majority of the applicable body would be
necessary.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG responded that a motion would be
required to withdraw a sponsor's name.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON opined that the intent should be clearly
stated.
9:28:04 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG said a motion requires "a majority of
those present."
9:28:46 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG said Sections 4 and 5 have engendered
some debate, and he just wanted to introduce them today. He
said the Constitution of the State of Alaska mandates that a
bill be read three times, which has been interpreted in the
Rules to require the title. He said the purpose of these
provisions is "so that things are not rushed through and people
know what's before the body." He said bill titles are sometimes
very long, and the clerk has to read the whole title. He said
[Section 4] would allow the presiding officer to truncate the
bill title when appropriate. He said he does not think that
would be unconstitutional.
CHAIR LYNN said that may lead to some problems.
9:31:45 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON suggested that Representative Gruenberg's
proposal be considered for only the third reading.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG asked, "Would the members like me to
strike that section or limit it to the first or just leave it?"
9:32:23 AM
REPRESENTATIVE PETERSEN concurred with Representative Seaton
regarding the importance of reading the full title at least at
first reading.
9:33:02 AM
MR. MADSEN related that current rules allow for "the second
reading to occur in the same manner as the first reading";
therefore, if the first reading was the full title, then the
second would be also.
REPRESENTAIVE GRUENBERG reiterated that Section 4 [of HCR 8]
could be deleted.
CHAIR LYNN suggested that a subcommittee could work on the
issue.
9:34:40 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG moved to adopt Amendment 1, to delete
Section 4. There being no objection, Amendment 1 was adopted.
9:35:14 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG moved to adopt Amendment 2, which read
as follows [original punctuation provided]:
Page 3 line 11
After "sponsor" insert
",joint prime sponsor or cosponsor"
After "in" insert
"the"
Page 3 line 12
After "introduced." Insert
A member may move to withdraw the member's name as a
cross-co-sponsor of a measure when it is in the
possession of the second house.
9:35:29 AM
MR. MADSEN said Amendment 2 would clarify that a member could
move to withdraw a member's name, whether or not the member is a
sponsor, joint prime sponsor, or cosponsor. It would also
include the term "cross-co-sponsor".
CHAIR LYNN asked if there was any objection to Amendment 2.
There being none, it was so ordered.
9:36:17 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG brought up the question of how many
members it takes to move a bill out of committee.
CHAIR LYNN suggested Representative Gruenberg work on that
issue.
9:36:55 AM
CHAIR LYNN reiterated that a subcommittee may be formed to work
on this issue over the interim.
9:37:21 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON said if [HCR 8] is heard again, he would
have an amendment prepared that would "remove the extra 20" co-
prime sponsors.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG questioned why that could not be done
forthwith.
CHAIR LYNN said he would rather not address an amendment on an
issue worthy of discussion when so many committee members are
absent.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG asked permission to have a committee
substitute prepared "with the two amendments in it."
CHAIR LYNN said yes.
9:38:05 AM
CHAIR LYNN announced that HCR 8 was held over.
HB 128-INTRODUCTION OF MEASURES/FISCAL NOTES
[Contains discussion of HCR 8.]
9:38:14 AM
CHAIR LYNN announced that the last order of business was HOUSE
BILL NO. 128, "An Act relating to introduction of measures and
to fiscal notes for measures."
9:38:28 AM
TIM MADSEN, Staff, Representative Max Gruenberg, Alaska State
Legislature, presented HB 128 on behalf of Representative
Gruenberg, sponsor. He directed attention to Section 1, which
would permit sponsors and joint prime sponsors to act together
to submit fiscal notes. Currently, he said, only sponsors are
allowed to introduce fiscal notes on bills and resolutions.
9:39:11 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON interpreted that under HB 128, a sponsor
of a bill that was not prefiled could no longer [submit] a
fiscal note.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG, as sponsor of HB 128, suggested that
an amendment could be made to change the language to "the
sponsor or a joint prime" [sponsor].
9:41:16 AM
MR. MADSEN directed attention to Section 2, beginning on page 1,
line 9, which would require the names of the prime sponsors and
joint prime sponsors to appear on the fiscal notes.
Furthermore, it would require the name, e-mail address, and
telephone number of the person who prepares the fiscal note.
Currently, he noted, the e-mail address is not required.
MR. MADSEN moved on to Section 3, which begins on page 2, line
17. He said it would require that in addition to the current
requirement that a copy of the fiscal note is sent to the prime
sponsor, copies would also be sent to each of the joint prime
sponsors. He directed attention to Section 4, which begins on
page 2, line 22, and would permit a member or member-elect of
the legislature to prefile. Section 5, beginning on page 3,
line 3, would permit the governor to introduce resolutions as
well as bills, he noted.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG related that there have been times when
the legislature has called upon U.S. Congress "to do certain
things." He opined that the governor should have the power to
file a resolution.
9:43:54 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON directed attention to page 3, line 5,
which adds "a group of members" to those who may introduce a
bill or resolution. He surmised this means the bill sponsor
wants to allow "prime sponsors throughout the legislative
session instead of being on prefiled bills."
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG confirmed that is correct. He
explained, "That is concurrent with what we did in the
resolution; this marries them up."
CHAIR LYNN remarked that he has found it irritating when he has
not been able to get [joint] prime sponsors for legislation he
wants to introduce midway through session.
9:44:32 AM
CHAIR LYNN announced that HB 128 was held over.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| 01 HB0128A.pdf |
HSTA 4/7/2009 8:00:00 AM HSTA 3/23/2010 8:00:00 AM |
HB 128 |
| 03 Sectional HB 128.pdf |
HSTA 4/7/2009 8:00:00 AM HSTA 3/23/2010 8:00:00 AM |
HB 128 |
| 10 HB 53- Version E.PDF |
HSTA 3/23/2010 8:00:00 AM |
HB 53 |
| 11 HB 53- Summary of Changes in CS Version R to E.PDF |
HSTA 3/23/2010 8:00:00 AM |
HB 53 |
| 12 HB 53 Sought Nomination Statutes.pdf |
HSTA 3/23/2010 8:00:00 AM |
HB 53 |
| 04 HB 128 Amendment.pdf |
HSTA 4/7/2009 8:00:00 AM HSTA 3/23/2010 8:00:00 AM |
HB 128 |
| 05 HB 128 Updated Sectional.pdf |
HSTA 4/7/2009 8:00:00 AM HSTA 3/23/2010 8:00:00 AM |
HB 128 |
| 06 HB128-LEG-SES-04-6-09.pdf |
HSTA 4/7/2009 8:00:00 AM HSTA 3/23/2010 8:00:00 AM |
HB 128 |
| 07 HB128-LEG-SES-03-22-10.pdf |
HSTA 3/23/2010 8:00:00 AM |
HB 128 |
| CSHCR8-pversion.pdf |
HSTA 3/23/2010 8:00:00 AM |
HCR 8 |
| HCR 8-LEG-SES-03-22-10 (2).pdf |
HSTA 3/23/2010 8:00:00 AM |
HCR 8 |
| HCR 8 Sponsor Statement.pdf |
HSTA 3/23/2010 8:00:00 AM |
HCR 8 |