Legislature(1999 - 2000)
03/26/1999 09:45 AM Senate FIN
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
SENATE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 9
Proposing amendments to the Constitution of the State
of Alaska relating to ways and means bills.
This was the first hearing for this bill, which was
sponsored by the Senate Finance Committee.
Senator Dave Donley spoke to the bill, saying it was a
simple concept that would provide a third exceptions to the
single subject bill. Currently there were two exceptions,
a reviser bill and an appropriations bill. This would add
an exception for a ways and means bill. Ways and means
bills would be confined to changes in the law determined by
the Legislature to be necessary to implement
appropriations. The idea was that in a downward budgetary
cycle, many of the changes the Legislature had to achieve
to reduce state expenditure had to be done in the statutes.
They could not simply be done through the budget document.
It was very complicated because the budget cycle and the
bill cycle were different. Without this legislation, every
change in statute that was necessary would need to be done
with independent bills because of the single-subject rule.
All the dollar amounts were implemented in a single
appropriation bill. This would allow a single ways and
means bill to implement the complementing changes in the
budget bill.
The real problems was that the budget cycle was difference
than the legislative cycle in that the legislation had two
years to work through the process. It was difficult for one
bill to be blocked by a single committee and held up, while
the budget bill still proceeds. If the ways and means
legislation doesn't make it through the process, then the
budget bill won't work any more. What happens is most of
the cuts just don't get made.
He continued saying, "You can't have an efficient way of
looking at the budget and really downsizing state
government from a programmatic point of view." What was
left would be budgets that simply cut across the board and
all the same programs were still preserved in statute. That
was not an efficient way to deal with downsizing spending.
He qualified that there would be a danger of abuse by the
Legislature, but he felt the same danger existed on other
levels and the Legislature was responsible enough to not
abuse those. This would allow more important programs to
be run efficiently while less important programs were
reduced.
Co-Chair John Torgerson agreed with the bill but had
concerns with the special session provision feeling that it
may lead to lengthy sessions. Senator Dave Donley had
discussed the matter with the drafters. It was hard to know
the exact circumstances with the special sessions. There
may be times when the Legislature wanted that tool
available. If a ways and means bill had failed in regular
session but the budget bill passed, the special session
would be a way for the body to come back and readdress the
issue.
Senator Sean Parnell had given it thought also. The
language in Section 1 detailing special sessions only dealt
with those called by the Governor. The previous sentence
detailed how special sessions could be called by the
Governor or by a vote of two-thirds of the Legislature. He
wondered if there a reason it was limited to a special
session called by the Governor.
Senator Dave Donley replied that reason it was applied to
specific special sessions called by the governor was
because the Governor set the perimeter of those special
session. However, the Legislature itself may need to
address the ways and means items, so this would give the
Legislature the authority to do that even if the Governor
did not issue a call. If the Legislature called the special
session, it could place the ways and means bill on the
agenda. The Governor could then not preclude the
Legislature from considering the matter.
Co-Chair John Torgerson asked if, with the two-thirds vote
requirement, could a member of the Legislature hold out
their vote unless a concession was made for a separate,
unrelated item to be added to the ways and means bill. He
wondered if that could jeopardize the vote on a special
session. Senator Dave Donley felt that was always a concern
with the special session vote. However, the Legislature
had only called itself back into a special session twice in
the past. So he didn't think it would be any more of a
problem than with other subject matters.
Senator Sean Parnell then asked for clarification that this
section was in no way meant to preclude or limit the
Legislature's ability to include a ways and means bill,
should the Legislature call itself into special session.
Senator Dave Donley affirmed.
Senator Sean Parnell made comments asking why would the
Legislature want to have ways and means bill during a
special session because that could complicate matters and
the special session may never successfully adjourn. He
posed a scenario where the Legislature passed a budget and
a related ways and means bill, but the Governor vetoed
both. He did not want to limit the Governor's ability to
call a special session on a budget matter without a ways
and means bill. He assumed the ways and means bill would
have to be vetoed in its entirety and therefore the
Governor may wish to call a special session to negotiate
the ways and means bill.
Senator Dave Donley responded saying that was a thought
process that went into this provision. If the Governor did
veto and then didn't put it in the call for a special
session, the Legislature would be left with the dilemma to
either override the veto or do nothing. He suggested
considering adding a provision to give middle ground
options.
Co-Chair John Torgerson commented that a ways and means
bill would not necessarily have to be acted upon during a
special session. It would be treated the same as any other
bill as far as the process was concerned. That made him
more comfortable. He could see the advantages of using a
special session to address a ways and means bill.
Senator Al Adams noted that the way this was written the
ways and means bill would have a broad title. He felt that
in doing this legislation, the Legislature was going in the
opposite direction. He wanted to have former Governor Jack
Coghill and Judge Tom Stewart, who served on the
constitutional convention to scrutinize the bill and give
suggestions. Senator Al Adams thought this bill would set
the state up for abuse in the form of riders added to a
ways and means bill. He believed ways and means bills
should be contained in a single subject to prevent
unrelated materials added to the process. If a single
subject provision was not inserted, he suggested adding a
new Section 15 that was in the constitution so the Governor
could strike the riders in a line item veto capacity.
Senator Al Adams noted that there would be changes to
political parties in control of state government.
Therefore, there needed to be a safeguard to allow the
Governor the power to veto rider items.
Senator Dave Donley thought that was Senator Al Adams was
saying was that the Governor had line item veto power on
appropriation bills and perhaps the Governor should have
the power to do same with a ways and means bill as well.
Senator Al Adams affirmed. Senator Dave Donley said the
Governor could have this ability to make the budget and the
ways and means bills balance. He felt the committee should
have a discussion on that point.
Senator Sean Parnell wanted to know if the President of the
US had that authority. Senator Dave Donley replied that
the President of the US did not and in fact, had fewer
executive powers than the Governor of Alaska did. The
president did not have line item veto although Congress had
attempted to give that authority. The US Supreme Court
ruled it could not be granted without a US Constitutional
Amendment.
Co-Chair John Torgerson pointed out to Senator Al Adams the
bottom of page 2, relating to how the ways and means bill
shall be confined to changes in law determined by the
Legislature to be necessary to implement appropriations. He
asked if Senator Al Adams thought that would cause
additional riders. Co-Chair John Torgerson understood that
to be pretty restrictive. Senator Al Adams said he would
like to get different legal opinions from the Legal Service
Division and the Department of Law on that point so the
committee could fully understand. He wanted to prevent any
abuse of that power. He didn't think all the members of the
committee understood that portion.
Co-Chair John Torgerson noted the Attorney General
testified on the bill in the Senate Judiciary Committee but
didn't speak to this particular issue. He had comments on
the broad title saying it could have good and bad
implications but that the good might carry the bad. He
also had problems with the special sessions.
Senator Al Adams thought Senator Dave Donley saw the
importance of the needed checks and balances and felt that
the committee could work something out to solve the
problem. Co-Chair John Torgerson asked if it would then
become a revision of law or a constitutional amendment.
Senator Al Adams commented that the legalities needed to be
looked at either way.
Senator Dave Donley wanted the nine members of the
committee to be comfortable with the bill. He asked for
their input. There were ways to increase the checks and
balances. He supported the bill as is but would also
support Senator Al Adams's suggestions. He discussed other
options.
He spoke of other discussions about the revisers bill. The
reviser of statutes had the responsibility of **. He
considered having the head of * and the head of Division of
Legislative Finance be the head, but *. There were ways to
get to that concern.
Senator Al Adams asked if the check and balances matter was
discussed in the Senate Judiciary Committee. Senator Dave
Donley said it had been. Co-Chair John Torgerson didn't
remember the line item veto being discussed.
Co-Chair John Torgerson announced he would request the
Legal Services Division to draft an amendment. He would
also ask the Department of Law to testify.
Co-Chair John Torgerson ordered the bill held in committee.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|