HB 290-DELIVERY OF RESOLUTIONS  HCR 10-UNIFORM RULES: RESOLUTION DISTRIBUTION  4:27:30 PM CHAIR CARRICK announced that the next order of business would be HOUSE BILL NO. 290, "An Act relating to delivery of resolutions by the governor" and HOUSE CONCURRENT RESOLUTION NO. 10, Proposing an amendment to the Uniform Rules of the Alaska State Legislature relating to resolutions. REPRESENTATIVE HOLLAND, as prime sponsor of HB 290 and HCR 10, said that the two actions together are about timely joint resolutions. Currently, there are specific timeframes when joint resolutions are fully transmitted and set in legislation. Last year, resolutions about the fire season were transmitted in the fall. AYDEN NICHOL, staff, Representative Ky Holland, Alaska State Legislature presented on HB 290 and HCR 10 on behalf of Representative Holland, prime sponsor. He said this is a pair of companion measures about the timely transmittals of joint resolutions. All resolutions from last session were sent out on an extreme delay such as the one that missed the fire season. 4:31:48 PM MR. NICHOLS presented a PowerPoint, titled "HB 290 & HCR 10 Transmittal of Joint Resolutions," [hard copy included in the committee file]. The current distribution process is reviewed on slide 2. He stated there is no timeline set for these resolutions. On slide 3, he outlined issues with the current process. Delays are an issue as fall was the earliest date that resolutions were distributed. A sectional analysis of HB 290 including 15 days for transmittal while in session and 20 days outside of session was outlined on slide 4. On slide 5, showing a sectional analysis of HCR 10, the resolution changes the distribution to the Office of the Chief Clerk or Senate Secretary's Office, with a timeline of within fifteen days of the resolution being returned by the governor. Additionally, the notification of the sponsor is required when a resolution is distributed. 4:35:46 PM REPRESENTATIVE MCCABE asked whether resolutions were hung up in the Office of the Governor or the legislature. MR. NICOLS replied there were delays in both the Office of the Governor and the Office of the Lieutenant Governor. REPRESENTATIVE MCCABE asked again about whether it was held up in the legislature. He asked if the sponsor would be open to an amendment that bills need to be transmitted out of the legislature in a timely manner. MR. NICOL replied that it would be a reasonable amendment. REPRESENTATIVE HOLLAND replied that he would be happy to investigate it. There was a great deal of difference in the timeline. All the resolutions were released on July 16. The amount of time spent in the executive office varied until the resolutions were all released. He would investigate a timeline to put into the initial transmittal. 4:38:49 PM REPRESENTATIVE VANCE commented about the separation of powers. She remarked that resolutions are different from bills. She asked whether legislative resolutions need to touch the executive branch. MR. NICOL replied that the office has sought an answer to that question but has not received an answer. REPRESENTATIVE VANCE asked, "How do other states deal with this?" It touches on the separation of powers. She explained that she wants to protect the power of the legislature. She expressed concerns about cutting out the Office of the Lieutenant Governor. MR. NICOL replied that the role of the lieutenant governor wasn't clarified. He said the lieutenant governor is tasked with many recordkeeping duties. The lieutenant governor thought this change may ease the tension with the legislature. He noted that the separation of powers is an important part. REPRESENTATIVE VANCE asked whether HCR 10 and any amendment to the Uniform Rules must be taken up by a joint session and passed by two-thirds of the legislature. MR. NICOL confirmed it was by two-thirds of the legislature. 4:42:49 PM CHAIR CARRICK said that she requested a bill be transmitted and it wasn't transmitted for five months. She asked whether this only relates to resolutions. MR. NICOL replied that Chair Carrick raised an excellent point. The scope of the measures is limited to resolutions. He said he would discuss it with the bill sponsor. 4:44:11 PM REPRESENTATIVE STORY said she was pleased to have this information as she was unaware of this large gap. Her question has to do with bills and resolutions. A bill must be looked at legally and have conforming changes. She cautioned about the timeline needed to have a legal review. She asked whether the sponsor did not receive an explanation of why it takes so long to get out. MR. NICOL replied that the sponsor did not receive an explanation from the Office of the Governor. The lieutenant governor walked through the process with the sponsor's office. The workload is heavy as many of these resolutions have large numbers of recipients. REPRESENTATIVE STORY asked whether this is the correct timeline. MR. NICOL replied that this timeline was picked in part with the constitutional timelines of bills. There was no input from the Office of the Governor. Legislative Legal Services, the Office of the Chief Clerk, and Senate Secretary's Office agreed that the timeline was reasonable. 4:47:47 PM REPRESENTATIVE HIMSCHOOT asked for a review of the differences between a resolution, joint resolution and concurrent resolution. MR. NICOL replied that a joint resolution is most formal type of resolution and can have the governor's signature. All other resolutions go through the Legislative Affairs Agency which falls to the Office of the Chief Clerk and the Senate Secretary's Office. REPRESENTATIVE HIMSCHOOT asked, "How does one decide which one to use?" MR. NICOL said an issue of national politics or constitution that must be done through a joint resolution. Concurrent resolutions are used to express concerns to the executive office. House or Senate special resolution express the will of one body. 4:50:51 PM CHAIR CARRICK opened public testimony on HB 290. ED MARTIN, representing self, stated support for HB 290 and commended Representative Holland for bringing forward the bill. He thanked him for trying to fix the bureaucracy of the legislature. Last year, he sent a letter to the House Judiciary Standing Committee in mid-March with a sample resolution about an investigation of Alaska's judiciary. He asked the committee to refer to the letter. 4:53:33 PM CHAIR CARRICK after ascertaining there was no further testimony, she closed public testimony on HB 290. 4:53:41 PM CHAIR CARRICK opened public testimony on HCR 10. MR. MARTIN testified in support of HCR 10. He asked for increased efficiency in the legislature. 4:54:35 PM CHAIR CARRICK after ascertaining there was no further testimony, she closed public testimony on HCR 10. REPRESENTATIVE HOLLAND thanked fellow committee members for their time considering HB 290 and HCR 10. He said he is looking forward to the follow-up. 4:55:19 PM CHAIR CARRICK announced both HCR 10 and HB 290 were held over.