Legislature(2011 - 2012)CAPITOL 106
02/15/2011 08:00 AM House STATE AFFAIRS
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB71 | |
| SB33 | |
| HB92 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| *+ | HB 71 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | SB 33 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| *+ | HB 92 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
HB 71-LEGISLATIVE SESSION LIMIT/PROCEDURES
8:07:54 AM
CHAIR LYNN announced that the first order of business was
SPONSOR SUBSTITUTE FOR HOUSE BILL NO. 71, "An Act relating to
the duration of a regular session of the legislature."
8:08:02 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON, as joint prime sponsor, said SSHB 71
would repeal AS 24.05.150(b).
8:08:34 AM
KATIE KOESTER, Staff, Representative Paul Seaton, Alaska State
Legislature, presented SSHB 71 on behalf of Representative
Seaton, joint prime sponsor. She said the proposed legislation
would repeal the 90-day session, which was passed by ballot
initiative in 2005. She reviewed that in 2007, House Bill 171
directed Legislative Council to appoint a committee to evaluate
the 90-day session. The members of that committee were
Representative Max Gruenberg, Representative Bryce Edgmon, and
Representative Paul Seaton, all of whom are joint prime sponsors
of SSHB 71, having concluded from their evaluation that the 90-
day session should be repealed. She said this conclusion was
supported by a survey, in which 31 members of the House showed
support of repealing the 90-day session. That survey is
available in the committee packet. She related that further
information regarding the survey is available on Representative
Seaton's web site.
8:10:49 AM
MS. KOESTER began a slide presentation, which first highlighted
questions asked in the aforementioned survey. Question 13 asked
if the respondents believe that changing to a 90-day session
from a 120-day session cut down on the Legislature's operating
costs; 92.9 percent of the respondents answered no. Question
14 asked the respondents if they believe that they and their
staff are able to communicate with their constituents as well
during a 90-day session; 83.3 percent said no. Question 18
asked if the respondents feel that a 90-day session provides
less time to schedule personal meetings with constituents and
members of the public during session; 93.3 percent said yes.
Ms. Koester said comments received regarding question 18
included that the 90-day session gives more power to those who
know "the inner workings of the system." A further comment was
that there was less time to meet with other representatives.
MS. KOESTER moved on to question 21, which asked respondents if
they believe that the 90-day session allows their personal
legislation to be adequately evaluated by committees of
referral; 90 percent answered no. Question 31 asked respondents
if they see a value in comparing Alaska with other states with
sessions shorter than 120 days, considering the issues dealt
with by the Alaska State Legislature; 83.3 percent said no.
Question 33 asked respondents if they believe that decreasing
the time that the legislature is convened to 90 days cedes some
of the power of the legislature to the governor or the
bureaucracy; 86.2 percent said yes.
8:14:07 AM
MS. KOESTER'S slide presentation next depicted a series of
charts [included in the committee packet]. The first chart
showed legislation introduced and passed from 1979 through 2010.
She pointed to the years 2007-2008 and 2009-2010, and said there
was only a difference of four in terms of bills that passed.
She further pointed out that there has not been a substantial
change in the number of bills introduced or passed when
comparing the 120-day session with the 90-day session.
8:15:08 AM
MS. KOESTER, in response to a question from Representative
Gruenberg, stated her understanding that [the reason there were
over 2,100 bills introduced between 1981 and 1982] is because
there was at that time no constitutional limit on the number of
bills that could be introduced. She said the amount of bills
introduced dropped remarkably by the 1990s, so it could be said
that the 120-day session did curtail the amount of legislation
introduced.
8:16:07 AM
MS. KOESTER stated that one of the arguments used in support of
a 90-day session was that it would encourage more people to run
for office, because the candidate would not have to spend as
much time away from his/her job and family. However, she
highlighted the chart labeled "Total Candidates Filed For Alaska
State House & Senate 2000-2010," which shows that there has been
a steady decrease in the number of candidates running for
office. She turned to another chart labeled "Legislative
Sessions Since Statehood - Session Lengths in Days" and noted
that it also shows the length of special sessions held during
that time period. She drew attention to a memorandum dated
2/1/2011, from Legislative Legal and Research Services, which
shows how things have changed since the initiation of the 90-day
sessions. Referring once again to the slides, she noted that
the next chart shows "State Legislatures' Limits to Regular
Session Lengths (Days)," and Alaska falls somewhere in the
middle with its 180 biennial session days.
MS. KOESTER said if the 90-day session is repealed, the state
would revert back to the 120-day session provided for in the
state's constitution, but would not preclude the legislature
from meeting for less than 120 days.
8:19:01 AM
MS. KOESTER directed attention to the fiscal note, prepared by
Shane Miller of the Administrative Services Division, dated
1/31/11. She said the estimated cost of SSHB 71 would be
approximately $800,000 for the extra 30 days of session;
however, she explained that that amount of money was never
removed, but instead was put into a budget to cover special
sessions. She said a special session can be more expensive than
a regular session.
8:23:32 AM
SHANE MILLER, Finance Manager, Accounting, Legislative
Administrative Services, Legislative Affairs Agency, in response
to a question from Representative Gruenberg, offered his
understanding that when the vote went into effect to change to a
90-day session, the thought was that there would be more special
sessions, which is why the extra money that would have been used
in a 120-day session was put aside. He stated his further
understanding that there were indeed more special sessions as a
result of the 90-day session. Prior to that the legislature had
to approve additional funding for special sessions.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG said presumably if logic is that a
shorter session will yield more and more special sessions that
are expensive, then conversely a longer session should yield
fewer special sessions. He questioned why that is not reflected
in the fiscal note.
8:25:12 AM
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON said there are committees that meet
during the interim that would not have done so when session was
longer.
8:26:23 AM
MR. MILLER, in response to a question from Representative
Gruenberg, said he does not know exactly what he means by
"savings." He explained that the fiscal note was based on what
the costs were for the 2010 session, broken out into a daily
rate, and then that number was used to "run it back out 30 more
days."
8:26:53 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON directed attention to a sentence in the
second paragraph of the fiscal note analysis, which read:
It is the intent of House Leadership that funding for
the additional 30 days be included in this fiscal note
and the special session contingency account remain to
provide adequate funding for future special sessions.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON concluded that no one should presume that
the Legislative Affairs Agency took it upon itself to put money
in a special account. He said he thinks that the committee
should not try to draw direct correlations between the costs and
benefits. He said it is apparent that the costs for special
sessions are higher, and there have been more special sessions
[following 90-day sessions]. He said the idea that the 90-day
session would save money is being called into question; it has
not been a cost savings.
CHAIR LYNN added that it cannot be said that 90 days is less
expensive just because less salaries and per diem are paid.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON said another cost factor is that
legislative staff used to have to pay their transportation costs
to and from Juneau, but because it became more difficult to find
staff willing to come to Juneau for a 90-day session,
Legislative Council changed the requirements so that the
legislature pays for the transportation cost of its staff.
CHAIR LYNN commented that it is difficult to find good staff no
matter how many days the session lasts, but indicated that [a
90-day session] "narrows the pool."
8:31:32 AM
REPRESENTATIVE PETERSEN prefaced his remark by relaying that he
has not worked as a legislator during a 120-day session. He
then said he heard that the overlap of the 120-day session with
the tourist season made finding housing difficult.
CHAIR LYNN emphasized that the important point of focus should
be how well the legislature serves its constituents.
8:33:19 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG, regarding the fiscal note, cited AS
24.08.035, which addresses fiscal notes. He paraphrased the
first sentence of AS 24.08.035(a), which read as follows:
(a) Before a bill or resolution, except an
appropriation bill, is reported from the committee of
first referral, there shall be attached to the bill a
fiscal note containing an estimate of the amount of
the appropriation increase or decrease that would
result from enactment of the bill for the current
fiscal year and five succeeding fiscal years or, if
the bill has no fiscal impact, a statement to that
effect shall be attached.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG interpreted that the requirement of the
law is that the fiscal note should be limited to the amount of
change that is caused by the bill. He then read the sentence
from the second paragraph of the fiscal note referred to by
Representative Seaton [text provided previously]. He stated,
"It sounds like the additional money ... doesn't result from the
bill itself but from the choice of House leadership to keep the
special contingency account. That's a management decision that
doesn't result from the bill and doesn't meet the statutory
requirement." He asked Mr. Miller for comment.
MR. MILLER responded that since the bill restores the session to
120 days, the fiscal note, "per guidance we had from House
leadership," reflects the cost of restoring the extra 30 days to
session.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG asked if the fiscal note would still be
$864,000 if that special account had not been kept alive.
MR. MILLER said he would have to get back to the committee with
that information.
8:36:06 AM
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON said she does not think that
information is relevant, because "the decision was made ... when
we started having 90-day sessions."
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG responded that the reason that decision
was made was because leadership foresaw an increase in the
number of special sessions as a result of the shortened regular
session. He said, "That assumption would no longer be true if
we have a longer regular session. So, there's no need for the
special contingency fund, presumably because we'll have enough
time."
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON countered that the reason there is no
increase in the fiscal note is that the same money that was put
aside for special session would now be used for a longer regular
session, so, "there's no increase in money."
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG said he agrees, but observed that the
fiscal note seems to be for an additional $864,000.
MR. MILLER said the fiscal note is "an increment for $846,000."
He then pointed to the previously quoted sentence in the second
paragraph of the fiscal analysis and said it specifies that
House leadership wants that money to remain in the contingency
account to cover future special sessions.
8:38:08 AM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHANSEN opined that it is not possible to
surmise what was in the minds of those who made the decisions at
the time they were made, so he doesn't understand why the
committee is wasting time on this discussion.
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON concurred with Representative Johansen.
8:39:33 AM
REPRESENTATIVE PETERSEN referred to the chart showing the number
of legislative sessions and special sessions since statehood and
observed that during the years when there was a 120-day
legislative session, there were 25 special sessions in 20 years.
He said he does not see a correlation between the length of
sessions and whether there are special sessions.
CHAIR LYNN said special sessions are unpredictable.
8:40:29 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON, in response to Representative P. Wilson,
said under SSHB 71 the legislature would return to the length of
session written in the constitution, which is a maximum of 120
days after the convening of session, which means a maximum total
number of 121 days. In response to Chair Lynn, he said the
effective date of the bill would be the next legislative session
in January.
8:42:18 AM
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER directed attention to the graph showing
the total number of candidates who filed for the Alaska State
House and Senate from 2000-2010, and he noted that the numbers
dropped steadily during those years. He indicated that he
thinks it would be an exaggeration to say that the entire reason
for that decrease is because of the 90-day session, and he asked
Representative Seaton to comment.
8:43:11 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON explained that the chart is just part of
the data that gathered. He said although it does not prove that
the decline in numbers of those running for office was caused by
the 90-day session, it certainly proves that the 90-day session
did not aid in increasing those numbers.
8:45:21 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG referred to a copy [included in the
committee packet] of Ballot Measure 1 [as presented in the
Division of Elections' voter information pamphlet], regarding
the 90-day session. He cited an excerpt of the statement in
support of Ballot Measure 1, written by Senator Tom Wagoner, who
quoted The Juneau Empire as follows:
"Reducing the time away from family and other work
also might encourage people to run for office.
Competition and choice only helps the democratic
process and ultimately might boost the caliber of
candidates."
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG then related that the language that
would be repealed by the proposed SSHB 71 is in the ballot
language and read as follows:
Section 1. AS 24.05.150 is amended by adding a new
subsection to read:
(b) The legislature shall adjourn from a regular
session within 90 consecutive calendar days, including
the day the legislature first convenes in that regular
session.
8:46:52 AM
CHAIR LYNN, after ascertaining that there was no one else who
wished to testify, closed public testimony.
8:47:19 AM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHANSEN said he does not think the overlap in
the legislative session and the tourist season would be
problematic for Juneau.
8:47:53 AM
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER said he supports passage of SSHB 71. He
talked about the importance of keeping balance between all
branches of government and protecting the citizens of Alaska.
He emphasized the importance of the extra 30 days of session,
because it takes time to learn how to work within the
legislature and get the job done.
8:51:02 AM
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON relayed that having served as a
legislator during both the 120-day and 90-day sessions, she has
found it is much harder to pass a bill within a shorter session.
She further pointed out that legislation can be alive for a two-
year period, which means that 60 days, not 30, are not available
to work on legislation, hear from constituents, or communicate
with other legislators when 90-day sessions are in play. She
concluded that less time vetting bills leads to more unintended
consequences.
CHAIR LYNN concurred.
8:53:54 AM
REPRESENTATIVE PETERSEN said he does not disagree with the
arguments that have been made, but finds it difficult to vote
against the people of Alaska who voted for the 90-day session.
8:54:44 AM
CHAIR LYNN proffered that legislators are subject to the will of
the people and that that will is reflected by who gets elected
every two years to the House.
8:55:07 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG opined that in three years the
legislature has given the 90-day session a good try, which has
allowed constituents to see how it works. He said a vast
majority of his constituents understand that the legislature
needs time to do a professional job. Regarding the comparison
of Alaska's legislature to that of other states, he said Alaska
has vast resources to manage and great distances to span. He
stated his support of the bill.
8:57:50 AM
CHAIR LYNN remarked that a longer session provides no personal
benefits to legislators.
8:58:53 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON said Alaska has a robust initiative
process. He said an initiative is just another way of creating
statute, except that the initiative empowers the people and
cannot be repealed for two years. He echoed Representative
Gruenberg's statement that the 90-day session has been in place
for three years. He directed attention to question 36 on page
14 of the aforementioned survey, which read as follows:
Taking into account the effect of the 90-day session
on all aspects of the legislative process, does the
fact that the session length was established by the
initiative process effect [sic] your willingness to
change the session length?
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON pointed out that 73.3 percent of the
respondents answered yes to that question. He said, "The
recommendation that has come forward to stimulate this bill is
the recommendation that came out of the majority of the House
respondents."
9:01:45 AM
CHAIR LYNN said he thinks many legislators have heard from their
constituents that they want the legislature to return to the
120-day session.
9:02:02 AM
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER moved to report SSHB 71 out of committee
with individual recommendations and the accompanying fiscal
notes. There being no objection, SSHB 71 was reported out of
the House State Affairs Standing Committee.