Legislature(1999 - 2000)
01/21/2000 01:54 PM House JUD
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
HOUSE JUDICIARY STANDING COMMITTEE
January 21, 2000
1:54 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Pete Kott, Chairman
Representative Joe Green
Representative Norman Rokeberg
Representative Lisa Murkowski
Representative Eric Croft
MEMBERS ABSENT
Representative Jeannette James
Representative Beth Kerttula
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 2
Proposing amendments to the Constitution of the State of Alaska
relating to a biennial state budget, to the appropriation limit,
and to appropriations from the budget reserve fund.
- MOVED CSHJR 2(JUD) OUT OF COMMITTEE
PREVIOUS ACTION
BILL: HJR 2
SHORT TITLE: BIENNIAL STATE BUDGET
Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action
1/19/99 16 (H) PREFILE RELEASED 1/8/99
1/19/99 16 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
1/19/99 16 (H) JUD, FIN
4/15/99 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120
4/15/99 (H) <BILL HEARING CANCELED>
1/21/00 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120
WITNESS REGISTER
REPRESENTATIVE GAIL PHILLIPS
Alaska State Legislature
Capitol Building, Room 411
Juneau, Alaska 99801
POSITION STATEMENT: Sponsor of HJR 2.
JACK FARGNOLI, Senior Policy Analyst
Office of the Director
Office of Management & Budget
Office of the Governor
P.O. Box 110020
Juneau, Alaska 99811-0020
POSITION STATEMENT: Expressed Governor's support for biennial
budgeting but cautioned about need for foresight and planning.
TAMARA COOK, Director
Legislative Legal and Research Services
Legislative Affairs Agency
129 6th Street, Room 329
Juneau, Alaska 99801
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions relating to HJR 2.
ACTION NARRATIVE
[Minutes for the Overview of the Interstate Compact by Lonzo
Henderson, heard during the first portion of the meeting, are found
in the 1:15 p.m. minutes for this same date.]
TAPE 00-4, SIDE A
Number 0001
CHAIRMAN PETE KOTT called the House Judiciary Standing Committee
meeting back to order at 1:54 p.m. Members present were
Representatives Kott, Green, Rokeberg, Murkowski and Croft.
HJR 2 - BIENNIAL STATE BUDGET
CHAIRMAN KOTT announced the committee would hear HOUSE JOINT
RESOLUTION NO. 2, proposing amendments to the Constitution of the
State of Alaska relating to a biennial state budget, to the
appropriation limit, and to appropriations from the budget reserve
fund.
Number 0038
REPRESENTATIVE GAIL PHILLIPS, Alaska State Legislature, sponsor,
explained that biennial budgeting is not a new concept in Alaska,
and 20 other states use it. She referred members to the written
sponsor statement, then said she would talk briefly about the
concept and answer questions. Representative Phillips alluded to
the advisory vote on September 14, 1999 [in which Alaskans voted
against using part of the permanent fund to pay for state
government]. Apparently referring to polls taken at the time, she
said the overwhelming response from people was a desire for the
state to operate more efficiently and effectively, while saving
money where possible. She believes biennial budgeting does that.
REPRESENTATIVE PHILLIPS explained the concept for HJR 2. The first
year of a legislative session, budgets will be done; that gives a
chance for new legislators to see how everything is done and get
their feet wet regarding the budget process. The budget written
that first year will carry on for a two-year period. The second
year, when legislators comes back, the length of that session can
be significantly reduced, possibly to 90 days or 60 days; an
amendment provided to members gives some options regarding that.
She indicated the financial impacts of 60-day and 90-day sessions
were being figured, to be provided to the House Finance Committee.
REPRESENTATIVE PHILLIPS expressed confidence that biennial
budgeting will allow much greater efficiency for state agencies,
which can put planning into place and have time to spend on
programs that can be developed over a two-year period. She assured
members it won't reduce legislative authority, as only the
legislature can write or approve a budget; that won't change under
HJR 2. In the off year, if the state realized significant declines
in revenue, the finance committees would have to come back in and
make adjustments, she pointed out; however, if there were
significant increases, there would be a savings. Representative
Phillips emphasized the need for Alaskans to look at biennial
budgeting, which works in many other states. It saves a lot of
money, and she believes it is a very, very good idea.
REPRESENTATIVE PHILLIPS mentioned that organizations in support of
HJR 2 represent business people, including those with mom-and-pop
operations, and other individuals who believe it is time for Alaska
to look at something like this. The resolution is creative, it is
different, and it responds clearly to the September 14 vote, which
she believes said, "Do things smarter, do things better, do things
cheaper in Alaska." Representative Phillips concluded by reminding
members that this would require a constitutional amendment.
Number 0333
CHAIRMAN KOTT asked whether any of the 20 states mentioned is
dependent on one resource.
REPRESENTATIVE PHILLIPS answered yes. She listed Texas, Washington
and Oregon, indicating there may be others. In answer to a
question by Representative Green, she clarified that when the
legislature came back into session following a financial crisis,
the finance committees would meet and make adjustments. It would
still be subject to full legislative review. However, they
wouldn't have to go through the entire budgetary process but would
make percentage factor changes. She pointed out that Oregon does
it very differently, using an "emergency budget committee" to which
they have given authority to make adjustments if there is an
emergency situation. However, Representative Phillips is not
recommending that Alaska do likewise.
Number 0479
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN voiced his understanding that only about 5
percent of Texas' budget is derived from oil.
REPRESENTATIVE PHILLIPS responded that right now it is at 10
percent, with the majority of revenue apparently from income tax.
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN indicated Texans had conveyed to him that it
is a good deal except they now have more special sessions,
especially in the second year. He pointed out that dropping oil
prices the previous year probably would have caused Alaska's
legislature to go into special session. He asked whether
Representative Phillips' analysis shows that even with additional
special sessions the state would still be way ahead.
REPRESENTATIVE PHILLIPS affirmed that. She noted that Alaska's
constitution provides authority for one 20-day and one 10-day
extension, which she indicated she isn't changing.
Number 0578
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG said his only concern about this is the
balance between variability of revenues and the loss of legislative
power. On the other hand, the amendment seems attractive to him.
He asked whether there are ball-park figures on potential savings.
REPRESENTATIVE PHILLIPS answered, "We didn't prepare the financial
detail for this committee, because this committee addresses the
constitutional amendments issues." She indicated details would be
provided to the House Finance Committee.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG asked whether Representative Phillips
wanted the present committee to take up her amendment.
REPRESENTATIVE PHILLIPS affirmed that. Amendment 1 [1-LS0174\A.1,
Cook, 1/21/00] read:
Page 1, line 1, following "relating":
Insert "to the duration of regular sessions of the
legislature,"
Page 1, following line 4:
Insert a new resolution section to read:
"* Section 1. Article II, sec. 8, Constitution of
the State of Alaska, is amended to read:
Section 8. Regular Sessions. The legislature
shall convene in regular session each year on the
fourth Monday in January, but the month and day may
be changed by law. The legislature shall adjourn
from regular session no later than one hundred
twenty consecutive calendar days from the date it
convenes during each odd-numbered year, and, during
each even-numbered year, a regular session may last
no longer than sixty consecutive calendar days,
except that any [A] regular session may be extended
once for up to ten consecutive calendar days. An
extension of the regular session requires the
affirmative vote of at least two-thirds of the
membership of each house of the legislature. The
legislature shall adopt as part of the uniform
rules of procedure deadlines for scheduling session
work not inconsistent with provisions controlling
the length of the session."
Page 1, line 5:
Delete "* Section 1."
Insert "* Sec. 2."
Renumber the following resolution sections accordingly.
Page 3, line 10:
Delete all material and insert:
"Section 30. Application of 2000 Amendments. (a)
Notwithstanding the 2000 amendment regarding the
duration of legislative sessions during even-numbered
years (art. II, sec. 8), regular sessions during 2002,
2004, and 2006 may last no longer than ninety consecutive
calendar days and may be extended once for up to ten
consecutive calendar days.
(b) The 2000"
[End of Amendment 1]
Number 0689
REPRESENTATIVE PHILLIPS explained that in looking at whether to
make the second year a 60- or 90-day session, and in talking with
legal counsel, she had decided a transition time would be needed.
Therefore, Amendment 1 calls for 90-day sessions for the first
three sessions, in 2002, 2004 and 2006. That will allow a chance
to work out any glitches. After 2006, the second session would be
60 days. Whether the second session would be 90 days or 60 days
could be decided after she provided financial backup to the House
Finance Committee.
Number 0752
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN pointed out that this is his eighth year, but
the legislature only has adjourned in less than 120 days one time,
when the sponsor was Speaker of the House. He questioned whether
the legislature could do the state's business in this length of
time.
REPRESENTATIVE PHILLIPS expressed confidence that during the
transition period, 90 days would be sufficient when not dealing
with the budget. She suggested the legislature does work to fill
the time slots, and if the time slot is shorter, they will do the
work in that time.
Number 0866
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT noted that some documentation describes a
budget session solely, followed by a bill session. However,
nothing in HJR 2, even with the proposed amendment, prohibits
discussion of legislation during the budget session.
REPRESENTATIVE PHILLIPS clarified that she doesn't intend for that
first session to be budget-only; rather, that is when the budget
will be done, unless there needs to be a provision for an emergency
adjustment.
Number 0946
REPRESENTATIVE MURKOWSKI indicated something in the packets led her
to think persons serving on the finance committees would be
available to serve on other standing committees during the
even-numbered years. She asked if that is what the sponsor
envisions.
REPRESENTATIVE PHILLIPS suggested those committees would still be
in place and able to meet, but members would be able to do other
things such as take on a project.
REPRESENTATIVE MURKOWSKI asked whether, as a general rule, other
states with biennial budgets have finance committees that remain
active in the off year.
REPRESENTATIVE PHILLIPS replied, "And they assimilate into other
things. Both."
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT mentioned bills with fiscal impacts.
REPRESENTATIVE PHILLIPS said that wouldn't change.
Number 1019
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN asked what legislators who don't serve on the
finance committees would do during the budgetary year.
REPRESENTATIVE PHILLIPS explained that legislators would continue
to do their duties just like they do today, with all legislation
coming before them. The significant impact, however, would be
with the agencies [in the off year], because personnel wouldn't
spend three to four months just working on a budget, and they could
become far more productive in the programs they are implementing.
Number 1092
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG said that is precisely the point he wanted
to make. The true savings won't be in shortening the legislative
session. One of the biggest problems has been that members of the
administration spend so much time budget building and sitting in
hearings in Juneau that they can't get their jobs done. He said
that is the singular thing that may sway his vote, and he suggested
the need to sell the public on that concept.
Number 1136
JACK FARGNOLI, Senior Policy Analyst, Office of the Director,
Office of Management & Budget (OMB), Office of the Governor, came
forward to testify. He expressed the Governor's support for
biennial budgeting, and for discussions and possibilities inherent
in this kind of legislation. He noted that much activity has
occurred over the last ten years among states. Today, 24 or 25
states use a biennial budget cycle, and another 15 or 16 use a
biennial legislative cycle. There is a lot of mixing and matching
between and among those possibilities.
MR. FARGNOLI agreed that in general, executive-branch agencies have
been presented an opportunity to gain benefits from biennial
budgeting in exactly the sense that Representative Phillips
discussed. In off years, he explained, although they have taken
very different approaches to it, states with biennial budgeting
commonly focus on selected areas that bear in-depth study. For
example, if welfare reform or rural economic development were
before Alaska now, the opportunity would exist in off years to
focus on areas of concern to both the administration and the
legislature. On the agency side is the counterpart. People
wouldn't be preoccupied with annual budget development and
compilation, which would free them to play their respective roles
in planning or working with the legislature in targeted
programmatic areas.
MR. FARGNOLI cautioned that the details bear a fair amount of
planning and foresight, which the Governor encourages. There is a
capability for numerous permutations. This potentially will change
the legislature's processes as much as the administration of the
executive branch; that is key to understanding both the challenges
and the opportunities. "That said, we really do endorse the
concept of it," Mr. Fargnoli concluded, "and would look forward to
the conversation with the legislature and the public on biennial
budgeting and how we might go about it."
Number 1278
CHAIRMAN KOTT asked, "In your opinion, given the existing state of
contract negotiations, would there be more creativity placed in the
budget cycle that would allow for some manipulation later on,
depending on how those negotiations take place and the eventual
outcome?" Clarifying that he was talking about contracts involving
public employees, he inquired about projecting into the future the
eventual costs if there would be net increases and how that would
be factored into the budget.
MR. FARGNOLI answered that he isn't sure. However, he would think
that, like many aspects of biennial budgeting, there would be a
longer time frame involved and, consequently, more possible
opportunities. It would probably require working closely with
labor unions and contracting groups to talk about those time spans.
Mr. Fargnoli concluded:
I think that to the degree you were able to plan your
programmatic aspects of state government over a longer
time frame, you conceivably, probably, would be able to
look at your labor contracts in just that same kind of an
extended-time-frame fashion. I would think there would
be at least some potential upside to that; I don't know
that there would be a downside to it. I think you'd have
to watch your timing on your labor contracts.
Number 1363
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG asked Mr. Fargnoli whether he agrees that
the primary benefits is time-saving efficiency on the part of the
administration and in putting together budgets and so forth.
MR. FARGNOLI affirmed that.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG asked whether conceivably there could be
some reduction in personnel because of that. Budget analysts, for
example, would have a window of time in which to work.
MR. FARGNOLI answered:
I don't know that you could. I can understand the
question and the possibilities for it. Between having
the problem of having people on and then putting them
off, I don't know how that would work out, really.
Certainly, the people who are involved in budget
preparation and budget development - even though right
now they're also involved in other duties and
responsibilities - certainly their time could be
allocated to other areas. I think you would probably see
those benefits being sooner than looking at actual
numerical reductions in employees. I frankly don't know
the answer to that question, but I would assume that the
productivity gains would be a very respectable benefit.
Number 1439
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG agreed there will be productivity gains but
asked whether there would be actual savings without reductions in
personnel.
MR. FARGNOLI responded that travel is one area for potential
savings that they have looked at. As for employee costs over time,
he doesn't really know, as they haven't looked at that. In
response to Representative Rokeberg's further inquiry, he affirmed
that the OMB is working on the fiscal note.
Number 1502
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT highlighted three levels of possible savings.
First, he agrees with Representative Rokeberg that cutting the
second legislative session to 90 or 60 days is the cleanest but
smallest savings. Second, if budget analysts weren't fired but
were freed up to do other things the second year, not having to
hire another person to do those other things would offer a savings,
especially with those "half persons" spread across different
budgets. And third, every year people come to the capitol to
advocate, defend or attack various aspects of the budget;
Representative Croft suggested there would be a broad societal
savings from only having to do that every two years; even if not
quantifiable, it is there as a savings.
MR. FARGNOLI agreed, noting that in addition to members of the
public, program managers - many of whom are not directly involved
in the budget development and compilation - come to the capitol to
testify when their programs are being deliberated. That would
provide another in-state government source of savings.
Number 1611
REPRESENTATIVE MURKOWSKI said she would ask the same question asked
of Representative Phillips in terms of making predictions when the
state is so reliant on a single industry.
MR. FARGNOLI noted that he had been present for a number of
administrations. Acknowledging that Alaska still appreciably
relies on revenue from resources, he said as the revenue base has
diversified, to the degree other fiscal and financial mechanisms
have allowed Alaska to assuage that reliance or dependency, it has
helped a lot in that regard. Alaska hasn't gone through the same
transformations that Texas has, for example. Mr. Fargnoli
indicated he himself believes Alaska is increasingly better
equipped and isn't in the same position as it would have been ten
years ago in terms of having to worry. He also indicated the
annual fluctuation of oil prices and revenues was the cause for
earlier reservations about this process. He concluded:
So, it's still something we should pay a lot of attention
to. But to the degree it's planned and discussed and
deliberated, in terms of a longer financial planning
horizon for state government, and more resource
development or economic development, I think ... those
are things that we can do together, and they would have
that mutual benefit of not leaving us so susceptible to
the moment-to-moment or month-to-month fluctuations of
oil prices. But ... it's a major concern, no doubt.
Number 1679
CHAIRMAN KOTT thanked Mr. Fargnoli. He reminded members they were
to look at this resolution from the constitutional standpoint
rather than as a question of policy.
Number 1692
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT made a motion to adopt Amendment 1,
1-LS0174\A.1, Cook, 1/21/00.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG objected. Noting Representative Phillips'
absence at the moment, he referred to Section 30 and questioned the
need for the transition period mentioned by the sponsor, especially
the three sessions of 90 days rather than 60.
Number 1772
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG made a motion to adopt a friendly amendment
that would amend Amendment 1 by striking page 1, line 10, and page
2 in its entirety. Together, that portion of Amendment 1 read:
Page 3, line 10:
Delete all material and insert:
"Section 30. Application of 2000 Amendments.
(a) Notwithstanding the 2000 amendment regarding
the duration of legislative sessions during
even-numbered years (art. II, sec. 8), regular
sessions during 2002, 2004, and 2006 may last no
longer than ninety consecutive calendar days and
may be extended once for up to ten consecutive
calendar days.
(b) The 2000"
Number 1784
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT objected. He voiced the belief that it is a
fairly radical change to cut the session length in half, and a
transition period probably is appropriate. Furthermore, with the
sponsor unfortunately absent from the hearing, he would be more
comfortable keeping that language. Although agreeing with Chairman
Kott's comment that this committee's main mission is to determine
the legality and to let the House Finance Committee determine
fiscal issues, Representative Croft pointed out that he himself
looks at policy aspects as well. He wouldn't support moving
legislation from a committee if he didn't think it was a good idea
and had met the legal scrutiny the committee should give. However,
with HJR 2 he hadn't seen any constitutional or legal problems, and
he believes it is good policy.
Number 1849
CHAIRMAN KOTT set aside the motions to adopt Amendment 1 and the
friendly amendment to it, noting that there had been objections to
both motions. Saying this had gone from a single-issue topic of
budgeting to now changing another section of the constitution, he
asked Tam Cook if that is perhaps beyond the scope of what they
should be doing.
Number 1885
TAMARA COOK, Director, Legislative Legal and Research Services,
Legislative Affairs Agency, responded that obviously there is a new
sensitivity resulting from the decision in Bess about the very hazy
distinction between an amendment that is permitted for the
legislature to propose and something that Alaska's court is going
to declare to be a revision. She advised members:
If you'll recall from Bess, one of the things that the
court looks at when it makes a determination - or at
least has explained to us that it will be looking at -
are the number of subjects that a proposed constitutional
amendment includes. And the court expressed the notion
that a constitutional amendment that is limited to a very
specific subject has a greater chance of surviving as a
proposed amendment of the nature that is within the power
of the legislature to propose, and will not be rejected
as a revision.
Because of that, the simpler the amendment that we can
give them, and ... probably the more refined it is, the
more careful it is to concentrate only on one subject,
probably the better chance we have ... of surviving if we
meet a Bess-type challenge on the
amendment-versus-revision dichotomy that we're now
facing.
In this particular case, it is possible that you could
support, in a Bess-type confrontation, an argument that
the reduction in the session is tied closely enough to
the budgeting process that they ought to be considered a
single subject. ... A rational argument could be made for
the proposition that if you're looking at a two-year
biennial budget, that the first year of the session ought
to be longer, and that the second year can, then, be
shorter. The court could easily come back and say, "Yes,
but it's not a requirement of biennial budgeting per se
that your session change in any way." So, I don't know
whether that type of an argument would survive or be
persuasive to the court.
I would have to say that adding a subject like the
duration of ... a regular session certainly makes this
particular bill more vulnerable. I think the bill may
actually be somewhat vulnerable under a Bess attack right
now, possibly, because of the change to the budget
reserve fund, ... which doesn't, in and of itself, have
to do with biennial budgeting.
So, it may be that there's a couple of things that this
committee would want to focus on. Of the two, I think -
it's really hard to say - it might be easier to convince
a court ... that there was a connection between a shorter
second session and a biennial budget than that there is
a good connection between the "change to the budget
reserve fund" language and a biennial budget.
Obviously, the safest thing to do is to go just with
biennial budget and address a session limit as a separate
proposal. But that might result in a policy choice that
was unacceptable to people, ... in that you could have
the voters vote "yes" for one but not the other ... and
leave you in an odd situation. It may be that that kind
of argument would help this survive under Bess, if you
were to include the durational residency. But I can't
speculate on the ultimate outcome.
Number 2046
CHAIRMAN KOTT asked: Is it necessary to place a constitutional
amendment before the voters that would restrict the number of days
that the legislature is in session during that second year, or
could the legislature arbitrarily set that number of days itself,
while keeping the parameter still at 120 days? He suggested
nothing prohibits the legislature from collectively agreeing to
adjourn within 60 days.
MS. COOK concurred, specifying that the constitution speaks only of
maximums and doesn't require that the legislature stay in session.
Number 2073
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT asked about the effect of the change to the
budget reserve fund.
MS. COOK answered that it is the repealer of subsection (b) of the
constitution. She pointed out that subsection (b) actually has
never been utilized.
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT indicated it has been the subject of court
cases.
MS. COOK said it could be viewed almost as cleanup, if one accepts
that it would never be useful in the future. However, it isn't the
kind of cleanup particularly needed to implement a biennial budget.
Number 2105
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT asked whether it has any logical relationship
to biennial budgeting.
MS. COOK suggested letting the sponsor [who was still absent] speak
to that, as it is something she obviously would like to see occur.
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT commented that it is the part that purports to
define the easy way to take money out when there is a decline, but
because of the vagaries of the state's budgeting, the permanent
fund and other issues, the conditions have never been met and are
unlikely to be met for at least the near future.
MS. COOK responded:
For the near future; I think that that's right. It's
because of the way our court views the types ... of
accounts that we have as being available for
appropriation, particularly the earnings reserve account
of the permanent fund. [It] has made it mathematically
impossible to get under (b), as I understand it, so far.
Number 2158
REPRESENTATIVE MURKOWSKI expressed her understanding that
Representative Phillips' biennial budget concept can stand alone,
without the provision.
MS. COOK replied:
I think it would function perfectly well without that
particular provision, and, arguably, it would function
perfectly well without the amendment. And the last
thing, if we're really worried about Bess, I supposed
that the committee could look at is what to do about the
appropriation limit. ... The appropriation limit is
another one of those anomalous, difficult situations.
That appears in the bill, dealt with on page 2 as Section
3. There's almost no way to draft, in this particular
provision, and to convert it to something that makes
sense in a biennial budget context, without having to do
something that is substantively different ... to the
appropriation limit itself. The appropriation limit has
... also been a nonfunctioning section of the
constitution.
In this particular case, what I did as a drafter -
obviously with the sponsor's permission - was to take a very simple
solution to a problem that is too complicated. I simply took the
notion that we're going to have a limit that applies ... to
appropriations for one year, expanded it to two year[s] and doubled
the amount. But, obviously, that means ... any one-year
supplemental appropriations would then be outside the limit,
theoretically. In order for me to draft in such a way as to attach
... one-year appropriations, I can't do it and make this thing
comprehensible.
So, one possibility is to just leave Section 16 out of
the bill, ... completely unamended, in which case you
have a constitutional provision that speaks in terms ...
of a spending limit that applies to single years; and it
would be perhaps difficult but maybe not impossible, if
you ever were to apply the spending limit, to bifurcate
your two-year budgets and figure out ... how to attribute
money that is appropriated in a two-year basis.
But one possibility for the committee is to decide simply
not to discuss the appropriation limit in this bill, and
then we haven't made a substantive change, although I
don't know how the provision will work ... in a biennial
budget situation. But we do get that subject off the
table as far as Bess analysis goes. So that's another
possibility.
Number 2270
REPRESENTATIVE MURKOWSKI stated her understanding that Ms. Cook
sees three potential Bess-type conflicts.
MS. COOK clarified that there are, potentially, three subjects in
this resolution without the amendment. The amendment would add a
fourth.
Number 2289
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG disagreed with Ms. Cook regarding the
60-day amendment. Mentioning demonstrable savings, he said he
believes that provision is substantive as to why a voter would even
take up the issue or why the legislature would even bring it
forward. He believes the courts would recognize the intertwined
relationship between the shorter session, for one thing, and a
biennial budget; he suggested a strong case could be made for that
even under Bess. As to the other, unspecified, issues, he has
concerns about them. He told members that is another reason he
brought forward the amendment to Amendment 1, which he thinks
cleans it up a little, by not clouding the issue further with the
transitional provision.
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT responded that he disagrees with everything
Representative Rokeberg had said except for his conclusion. He
believes there is a logical relationship between the goal of
biennial budgeting and having one session shorter, whether 60 or 90
days; those two work together well, and a lot of states do it that
way. However, he believes it would be better to leave Article IX,
Section 16, alone, although he understands what the drafter was
trying to do. In HJR 2, he suggested eliminating Section 3 [which
pertains to Article IX, Section 16], as well as Sections 4 and 6,
which he said are troubling in their own right but just unrelated
to this.
Number 2425
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG asked about the consequences of deleting
the language amending Article IX, Section 16.
MS. COOK explained:
One, it's problematic that it will ever come into play as
written. It probably will need to be substantially
revised if it's ever going to be of great effect in this
state. And if it is substantially revised, then we have
opened up a whole panoply of issues that would need to be
resolved. But assuming that it ever came into play, I
think the court will attempt to construe all of the
provisions of the constitution to give all of them
effect.
And it is not completely impossible to believe that you
could apply 16 as written, even in the context of a
biennial budget, ... as a matter of accounting or
something bifurcating two-year appropriations and
attributing portions of them, if that became necessary.
I think that if 16 were left as-is, a way would be found
to make it work, in answer to your question.
TAPE 00-4, SIDE B
Number 0001
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG suggested people may perceive, incorrectly,
that this raises the budget cap, and therefore vote against the
constitutional amendment; he believes it would be helpful to remove
it. He suggested that if the record shows that the committee
believes that the constitution is strong enough to withstand it, it
could be deleted.
CHAIRMAN KOTT asked Representative Phillips, who had rejoined the
hearing, if she wished to comment.
Number 0036
REPRESENTATIVE PHILLIPS expressed confidence that Ms. Cook had
covered many of the questions, then stated:
In trying to put together the language for a
constitutional amendment, we didn't want to get into a
lot of different things and change a lot of different
things that would make it difficult for the public to
understand what we are doing. All we want to do is
change the budget process. We're not trying to screw
around with the constitutional spending limit. We're not
trying to screw around with the constitutional budget
reserve or any of these things. We just want to change
the budget process. And that's why, I think, that ...
the bill was drafted the way that it was.
And certainly, notwithstanding Bess, when everything in
a bill applies to how you are changing a budget process
, ... annual to biennial, it would take an awful lot of
argument on a court system to find that ... those factors
didn't apply to a biennial budget. ... That would have to
be a huge stretch to say these things ... aren't
applicable to the concept of changing the budget process.
Number 0088
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT referred to Section 6 of the resolution, which
stated: "Article IX, Sec. 17(b), Constitution of the State of
Alaska, is repealed." He noted that Article IX, Section 17(b),
regards being able to get into the constitutional budget reserve
(CBR) with a majority vote when there are, essentially, declining
revenues. He said it has been defined in such a way that "we never
get to declining revenues." Saying it is troubling in either
budgetary scheme, he asked how that relates to biennial budgeting.
Number 0113
MS. COOK answered:
I don't think it will hurt the biennial budget concept to
delete that from this bill. You could still have a
biennial budget without changing the constitutional
budget reserve fund, although ... that's a policy matter
of cleanup that perhaps the legislature would love to
have occur. But ... if we're going to try to support
this case and we do end up with a Bess attack, then
obviously it would be helpful if it was a simpler bill.
MS. COOK, in response to Representative Rokeberg's question about
why Section 6 was included, said it was put in at the sponsor's
request. It [Article IX, Section 17(b)] is a provision that the
sponsor would like to see eliminated, and this is a vehicle for
amending the constitution.
Number 0158
REPRESENTATIVE MURKOWSKI noted that committee members seem to all
support a biennial budget. If, in fact, there is a risk of a court
challenge on a biennial budget, she asked whether Representative
Phillips would agree it is best to separate out these issues at
this time.
REPRESENTATIVE PHILLIPS responded:
That would be something that we could leave in there and
not deal with. ... It just seemed like it was a good time
to clean it up. ... If you guys think that that's going
to be a problem, I don't have any problem with taking
Section 6 out.
Number 0193
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT asked Representative Phillips to speak again
about the importance of the transitional language.
REPRESENTATIVE PHILLIPS explained:
My original concept was to just make it a specific year
- I mean, a specific time frame for this - in the bill.
And in talking with the finance people, talking with the
agency people, just the fact of getting everything
changed, we looked at maybe ... it would be easier on
everybody to have a transitionary period. That's not a
big factor to me. I mean, we can go right now to a
60-day for the second, ... without it affecting ... my
feelings on the bill. I was just trying to add some ease
for the agencies in this.
Number 0243
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT withdrew his objection to the friendly
amendment to Amendment 1 offered earlier by Representative
Rokeberg. He suggested this could be very clean, 120 days and 60
days; then if the House Finance Standing Committee wants to make it
90 days or add the transition period back in, they could do so.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG reminded members that the private sector
does this all the time, without even 60 days' warning, let alone
six years' warning. He suggested the committee's intention here is
to make it more "Bess-proof."
REPRESENTATIVE PHILLIPS, after looking over the effect of the
amendment to Amendment 1, said it is fine.
Number 0325
CHAIRMAN KOTT asked whether there was an objection to the amendment
to Amendment 1, deleting page 1, line 10, and all of page 2 of
Amendment 1. There being no objection, the amendment to Amendment
1 was adopted.
Number 0339
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG withdrew his objection to Amendment 1, as
amended.
CHAIRMAN KOTT, noting that there was no further objection,
announced that Amendment 1, as amended, was adopted.
Number 0358
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT made a motion to delete Sections 3, 4 and 6 of
the resolution. He stated the intention of having this be, as
cleanly as possible, a biennial budgeting constitutional amendment.
CHAIRMAN KOTT labeled that Conceptual Amendment 2 and asked if
there was an objection. There being none, he announced that
Conceptual Amendment 2 was adopted.
Number 0395
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG made a motion to move HJR 2, as amended,
from committee with individual recommendations and the attached
fiscal note. There being no objection, CSHJR 2(JUD) was moved from
the House Judiciary Standing Committee.
ADJOURNMENT
Number 0426
There being no further business before the committee, the House
Judiciary Standing Committee meeting was adjourned at 2:52 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|