Legislature(2011 - 2012)SENATE FINANCE 532
03/08/2011 09:00 AM Senate FINANCE
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| SB18 || SB19 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | SB 18 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | SB 19 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
SENATE BILL NO. 18
"An Act relating to the duration of regular sessions
of the legislature; and providing for an effective
date."
SENATE BILL NO. 19
"An Act excluding motorcycles and motor-driven cycles
from the passenger vehicle rental tax."
9:17:43 AM
SENATOR GARY STEVENS began with page 11 of the Alaska
Constitution. He quoted Article 2, Section 8: "The
legislature shall adjourn from regular session no later
than one hundred twenty consecutive calendar days from the
date it convenes except that a regular session may be
extended once for up to ten consecutive calendar days." He
pointed out that the founders felt it important to make the
session period explicit in the constitution. He stressed
that the public voted to shorten the legislative session
from 120 days to 90 days, through the initiative process in
2006. He explained that in many years prior to that
initiative, legislation had been introduced to shorten the
days of the legislative session, but none ever passed. He
felt that shortening the session gave more power to the
governor and the administration, and restricts the ability
of the legislators to fulfill the job that they were
elected to do. He explained that some constituents felt
that the session should stay short. They felt that if the
legislature stayed in session for a longer period,
government would get bloated. He explained that some
legislators like the 90-day session, because it allows them
more time for personal endeavors; but most felt that there
was not enough time in the session to get all the business
done. He pointed out that the governor opposed the
extension of the session. He explained that the legislators
understand their communities, and are elected to represent
the communities and people of the state.
9:24:00 AM
Senator Stevens stressed that discussion regarding the
length of legislative session was important. He stated that
the legislature was in a weaker position that it was before
the initiative passed. He emphasized that the 90-day
session was not effective. He felt the need to protect the
legislative institution.
Senator Olson remarked that there were many factors that
could have contributed to a decline in legislative
candidates. He wondered if the 90-day session really did
encourage people to run for office. Senator Stevens stated
that when the initiative was considered, it was thought
that more people would run for the legislature if there was
a shorter session. He pointed out that 150 people ran in
2000, and 100 people ran in 2010. He did not know if the
decline in candidates was a direct result of the shortening
of the session, but pointed out that the goal of the
initiative did not work.
Senator Thomas wondered if there was a consideration of the
benefit of more regularly scheduled interim meetings.
Senator Stevens replied that interim meetings did occur,
but it was very expensive. He stressed that more work
should get done in the time that is given in Juneau.
9:29:41 AM
Co-Chair Stedman requested a difference between the
initiative process and constitution. Senator Stevens stated
that the constitution stated very clearly that the
legislature will adjourn no later than 120 consecutive
calendar days from the day in convened. The initiative
changed it to 90 days.
Co-Chair Hoffman remarked that the last session that the
legislature went past the 90 days. It was generally felt
that the law was not broken, because it was stated in the
constitution that session allows for 120 days. Senator
Stevens affirmed.
TIM LAMKIN, STAFF, SENATOR STEVENS, presented a PowerPoint
presentation: "Duration of Alaska's Legislative Sessions"
(copy on file). He stated that SB 18 struck a compromise:
90-day first session, 120-day second session. In 2006
voters passed Ballot Measure 1 (BM 1), reducing the
legislative sessions to 90 days; and BM 1 passed by a
margin of 50.8 percent in favor, in what was a notable low
voter turnout.
Mr. Lamkin displayed slide 3, and noted that the chart
displayed the voter turnout from 1976 to 2010. He pointed
out that the spikes were presidential elections. He
stressed that 2010 was the third lowest voter turnout since
1976.
Mr. Lamkin displayed slide 4. He stated that the 90-day
session vote passed by 3,843 votes; there were 238,307
total cards casts statewide during the 2006 general
election; there were 231,507 total cards cast statewide on
BM 1; and there were 6,800 people who took a ballot, but
did not vote on BM 1.
Mr. Lamkin displayed slide 5. He stated that the current
year would be the fourth session the legislature has worked
under a 90-day limit since the initiative vote took place.
He stressed that the best interests of Alaskans were not
being served, nor were the arguments made to support
passing BM 1 in the first place being proven valid.
Mr. Lamkin discussed slide 6. He highlighted some arguments
that were made in favor of shortening the session:
reducing the cost of government, 27 other states had
shorter sessions than Alaska; legislation to shorten the
session had been introduced 24 times since 1990 with no
action taken; and less time in Juneau would reduce time
away from home, family, private sector work, etc, and thus
would incentivize more quality individuals to run for state
office.
9:34:48 AM
Mr. Lamkin presented slide 7: "Reducing the Cost of
Government." He stated that the election pamphlet stated
that "we save 30 days of per diem and expenses of operation
of the legislature-paper, copy costs, transportation, etc."
He remarked that actual session costs had been reduced, but
the overall operating budget of the legislature had
increased. He stated that legislative salaries, session per
diem, and travel expenses had increased, and much of it
accrues throughout the year, not just during session. He
remarked that following the first 90-day regular session,
there were two 30-day special sessions in 2008; and there
had also been an increase in traveling interim committee
hearings.
Mr. Lamkin discussed slide 8: "Interim Committee Meeting of
the Alaska Legislature 2000-2010." He stated that the chart
helped to illustrate the frequency of interim activity from
2000 to 2010. He remarked that the peaks were non-election
years. He noted that in 2008, 2009, and 2010 there were
significant increases in interim activities in Anchorage.
Mr. Lamkin displayed slide 9: "Alaska Legislative Sessions
since Statehood - Days/Session." He stated that the chart
demonstrated the actual number of days in session since
1959. He pointed out that the there was no limit to the
legislative session until 1982, when the public voted to
limit the legislative session. In 1984, a constitutional
amendment was passed to limit the session to 120 days.
Mr. Lamkin discussed slide 10, which displayed a zero
fiscal note.
Mr. Lamkin presented slide 11. He stated that the money
that was expected to be saved was put aside in the
anticipation of increased special sessions and interim
costs. The fiscal note did not say there would be no cost,
rather that the costs would be absorbed by the existing
budget-no new appropriation was necessary.
Co-Chair Stedman stated that the two fiscal notes that were
currently attached to the bill reflected the cost of
implementation. He stressed that there was a budgetary
impact.
9:39:11 AM
Mr. Lamkin discussed slide 12. He stated that the savings
of approximately $800,000 would represent about 2 percent
of the legislature's total operating budget. He noted that
the roughly $50 million spent to operate the legislative
branch of government was a "drop in the bucket" compared to
the approximately $10 billion spent by the executive branch
agencies.
Mr. Lamkin presented slide 13: "Point 1 - There is not a
significant, if any, cost 'savings' (reduction in the cost
of government) by maintaining a 90-day legislative
session."
Mr. Lamkin displayed slide 14, and brought up the common
concern about other states limiting the duration of their
legislative sessions.
Mr. Lamkin discussed slide 15, and stated that 27 other
states had sessions that were shorter than Alaska's
legislative session.
Mr. Lamkin presented slide 16: "Methods by Which
Legislative Sessions are Limited." He stressed that 28
states were limited by their constitutions. He pointed out
that Alaska has both constitution and statutory limits. He
noted that 5 states had statutory limits. He remarked that
3 states had chamber rule, which means that at the
beginning of each session, the leadership writes a
resolution deciding on an adjournment date. He noted that 3
states had indirect method, which meant that states would
decide that after day X, the legislators were no longer
granted per diem. He pointed out that 11 states had no
imposed session limit.
Mr. Lamkin remarked that there was a distinction between
calendar days and actual legislative days. He pointed out
that, in Alaska, the Senate meets Monday, Wednesday, and
Friday, which would be considered three legislative days,
in a 7 calendar day period. He stressed that Alaska
currently operated under a 90 calendar day system. He
pointed out that Alabama had 30 legislative days out of 105
calendar days. He stressed that Hawaii, Indiana, and
Tennessee all had more calendar days in a session than
Alaska.
Mr. Lamkin displayed slide 17, and remarked that Alaska was
had the 27th longest session based on actual calendar days.
Mr. Lamkin discussed slide 18, and noted that every state
was different, unique, and had its own reasons for choosing
to operate its legislature the way it does; and similarly,
Alaska was known as a "do-it-yourself" type state.
Mr. Lamkin presented slide 19. He stressed that Alaska is
almost directly in the middle of all the other states, and
SB 18 would move Alaska even closer to the middle.
Mr. Lamkin displayed slide 20. He noted that legislation
was introduced 24 times since 1990 in an effort to shorten
the session, and each attempt failed.
Mr. Lamkin discussed slide 21. He remarked that legislation
that had no likelihood of passing was introduced almost
every day of the session. The legislature had the
prerogative to act or not act on any issue, and there were
always more issues than there were actions.
Mr. Lamkin presented slide 22. The graph displayed the data
of the Alaska legislation that was introduced, versus the
legislation that was passed from 1979 to 2010. He remarked
that there was substantial work that was done behind the
scenes, and necessary to effective legislatures.
Mr. Lamkin displayed slide 23, which displayed Alaska as
the 44th state in average pieces of legislation introduced
per year from 2002 to 2010.
Mr. Lamkin discussed slide 24, which ranked Alaska as
fourth from the bottom of average pieces of legislation
passed by state legislatures from 2002 to 2010.
9:45:45 AM
Mr. Lamkin presented slide 25, and remarked that Alaska was
22nd among states in the ratio of legislation introduced to
legislation that was passed by state legislatures from 2002
to 2010.
Mr. Lamkin displayed slide 26, and noted that legislation
was often presented and not passed. Legislation that has no
likelihood of passing was introduced almost every day of
session.
Mr. Lamkin discussed slide 27. He posed the question: "By
the reasoning of this argument supporting BM 1, should any
bill that fails to pass the legislature after X number of
attempts be automatically forwarded to the ballot box for a
vote?" He retorted with slide 28, and stated that it was
not a valid argument to say something should become law
simply because the legislature had consistently chosen not
to make it a law on its own.
Mr. Lamkin discussed slide 29. He remarked that a shorter
session meant less time away from home, away from family,
away from work in the private sector, etc, and thus will
incent more competition between quality individuals to run
for office.
Mr. Lamkin presented slide 30. He stated that since the
initiative passing in 2006, the total number of candidates
that have filed for Alaska State House and Senate had
significantly declined.
Mr. Lamkin displayed slide 31. He stated that since the
2006 vote to shorten the legislative sessions, the
candidate pool shrank by 20 percent; the opposite of what
was argued in favor of passing BM 1.
Mr. Lamkin discussed slide 32, and discussed other
considerations to restore a 120-day legislative session. He
stated that the 120-day restoration would allow for more
time for public testimony and deliberative processes; ease
staff workloads; more time for House Subcommittee
Evaluation Survey; and encourage a balance of power between
the executive branch and legislative branch of government.
Co-Chair Stedman mentioned two fiscal notes from the
Legislative Affairs Agency. He pointed out that the first
fiscal note reflected a $450,000 increase in session
expenses every other year; and the second reflected a
$413,000 increase in salaries and allowances every other
year.
9:51:13 AM
Senator Olson queried the effective date of the bill. Mr.
Lamkin replied that the effective date of the bill would be
January 1, 2012.
Co-Chair Stedman remarked that there was money in the
system already to cover the 2012 cost.
Co-Chair Stedman remarked that the legislature had the
power of appropriation and oversight. He stressed that most
of the time was taken focusing on the budgets, and so it
was difficult to deal with some major policy issues: i.e.
oil and gas taxation. He stressed that the 90-day limit
placed a substantial time restraint in dealing with
important policy issues. He stressed that the legislature
was the basis of public involvement of government.
Senator Stevens felt the discussions regarding extending
the session were important, and welcomed any amendments for
consideration.
SB 18 was HEARD and HELD in committee for further
consideration.
SENATOR HOLLIS FRENCH stated that SB 19 would remove the 10
percent vehicle rental tax on motorcycle rentals. He
remarked that with the short summer in Alaska and the
economic benefits of independent tourism, the legislature
should support the emerging motorcycle rental industry.
9:57:23 AM
ANDY MODEROW, STAFF, SENATOR FRENCH, introduced himself.
Co-Chair Stedman pointed out the fiscal note from the
Department of Revenue, that displayed a $12,000 reduction
in state revenue.
NANCY HULL, OWNER, ALASKA MOTORCYCLE ADVENTURES (via
teleconference), spoke in favor of SB 19.
PHILIP FREEMAN, MOTOQUEST (via teleconference), testified
in support of SB 19.
10:03:57 AM
Co-Chair Stedman wondered why the taxes were originally not
paid to the state. JOHANNA BALES, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE
(DOR) (via teleconference), replied that the knowledge of
motorcycle rental tax was not brought to the attention of
DOR until four or five years after the vehicle rental tax
came into effect. She stressed that motorcycle rentals did
meet the definition of passenger vehicles under the
statute.
Co-Chair Stedman requested DOR supply the committee with
their official stance regarding the motorcycle rental tax
elimination.
Senator Olson wondered if there could merely be a decrease,
rather than an elimination of the tax all together. Senator
French replied that he would be happy to discuss a
decrease, but felt that the tax revenue was already
insignificant.
Co-Chair Stedman wondered why there was a lack of
collection for four years. Senator French replied that he
understood it as merely an oversight. He felt that many of
the businesses may have not even been noticed by the
Department of Revenue.
10:10:11 AM
Senator Thomas agreed that it probably was an oversight,
and looked at the list of vehicles in the bill. Senator
French remarked that the list in the bill referred to
exceptions of what a passenger vehicle is considered. He
stressed that motorcycles should be included in that list.
SB 19 was HEARD and HELD in committee for further
consideration.