HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 2 Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the State of Alaska relating to repeal of regulations by the legislature. REPRESENTATIVE NORM ROKEBERG, SPONSOR, HJR 2 testified in support of HJR 2. He noted that the legislation proposes an amendment to Alaska's Constitution. He observed that the legislature has no method to deal with "rogue" regulations that do not meet the intent of statutes or are objectionable as a matter of public policy. He acknowledged that similar proposals have been defeated three times. He provided members of the Committee with the 1980 proposed constitutional amendment, as proposed by the legislature and the ballot question (copies on file). He stressed that the ballot question did not adequately reflect the resolution passed by the Legislature. In 1980 the Legislature passed legislation, which allowed the Legislature to bring a cause of action, after a request of the Lieutenant Governor, to change regulations. He acknowledged that previous attempts to allow the Legislature to annul regulation have failed but maintained that there has never been an organized effort to support this issue. He emphasized that there are a number of organizations that support the concept. He asserted that the legislation would right an imbalance in the balance of powers between the legislative and executive branches. He observed that the Constitutional Convention gave the executive branch an enormous amount of power. Representative Rokeberg noted that HJR 2 was amended in the House Judiciary Committee. "After finding that a regulation is inconsistent with its enabling statute," was added on page 1, lines 6 and 7. He recommended that this language be deleted and the original version of the bill be adopted. He maintained that the additional language would bind the hands of the legislature. REPRESENTATIVE JEANETTE JAMES, CO-SPONSOR, HJR 2 testified in support of the legislation. She echoed remarks by Representative Rokeberg. She noted the difficulty of deleting regulations. She observed that some regulations are not implemented. She stressed that a regulation can technically implement the chapter without working. She spoke in support of the original version of HJR 2. Representative Martin spoke in support of the legislation In response to comments by Representative Martin, Co-Chair Therriault clarified that the statutes allow an individual or the Legislature to challenge a regulation in Superior Court. Representative Davis asked if there is a constitutional question regarding the separation of powers. Representative Rokeberg clarified that the legislation would amend the Constitution. (Tape Change, HFC 98 - 1, Side 2) Representative James stressed that by not implementing regulations for legislation that has been passed, the executive branch can issue an "out of pocket veto." She emphasized that the executive branch cannot suppress legislation by not failing to implement regulations. She stressed the need for the Legislature to have more "clout". She asserted that the Legislature needs a "hammer". She acknowledged that a voluntary process is needed for the Legislature and the Administration to work together on regulations. She emphasized that the Legislature writes law and that regulations implement law. She noted that the obligation of the Legislature is to write the laws and that the obligation of the Administration is to administer the laws. She estimated that the Legislature would not have to use its clout often. Representative Davies stressed that the separation of powers is routed on the practicality of how much time the Legislature wants to spend on writing regulations. He suggested that the Legislature has enough to do dealing with policy issues. Implementation of the law is the process of writing regulations, and following the public hearing process. He did not think that the Legislature should be involved in this process. He pointed out that there is a regulation review committee. He suggested that the executive's ability to veto is an appropriate element in the balance of power. Representative Kelly stressed that after a regulation is repealed there would be a period of time before a new regulation could be implemented. Representative James noted that there is a 30-day period before a regulation can be implemented. Representative Kelly observed that it could take up to a year for a new regulation to be implemented. Representative Rokeberg emphasized that it is easier to pass a resolution than amend statute. He noted that the Governor can veto bills. He cannot veto a resolution. He stressed that it is easier to pass a resolution by simple majority than to overturn a veto. He added that resolutions could be used as guidance to correct problems in regulations. He observed that the regulation review process can be speeded up. He clarified that there is an emergency regulation process. He stated that the legislation provides a legislative veto. He observed that, according to the court, the Governor's veto is there to act as a check upon corrupt or hasty and ill considered legislation. He pointed out that there is no process to check a run amok bureaucracy. He maintained that a legislative veto would be a check upon corrupt or hasty and ill-considered regulations. Representative Kelly expressed concern that non-elected officials can create the force of law through regulations. He noted that, through the passage of HB 130, the Governor is ultimately responsible for regulations. Representative Davis noted that the state of Utah provides that regulations be reviewed every three years. He maintained that an automatic review brings awareness to any problems that exist in regulations. Corrections are made to prevent repeal of regulations. He spoke in support of the Legislation. Representative Grussendorf asserted that political or special interests have motivated most of the resolutions that he has seen. He maintained that resolutions do not receive adequate public hearings. He noted that the 1980 ballot amendment would have allowed regulations to be annulled by concurrent resolution. He noted that concurrent resolutions are easier to pass then joint resolutions. Representative Martin observed that the public gets upset with the legislature when regulations exceed the law. Representative Kohring expressed support for the legislation. He stated that his most common constituent concerns relate to regulations. He maintained that society is over regulated. Co-Chair Hanley MOVED to ADOPT HJR 2 as the version before the Committee. Representative Davies OBJECTED. Representative Davies stated that "we don't want the Legislature running amok." He spoke in support of the House Judiciary substitute. Co-Chair Therriault expressed concern that the Judiciary version opens the legislation to litigation. He questioned what would be required in regards to the finding. Representative Grussendorf spoke in support of CSHJR 2 (JUD). He noted that concerns are brought to the Administrative Regulation Review Committee. The Administrative Regulation Review Committee makes a statement of findings. He suggested that the Administrative Regulation Review Committee can provide findings. Co-Chair Therriault pointed out that a regulation could be consistent with statute but still overly burdensome. Representative Martin spoke against the inclusion of language requiring a finding. Representative Grussendorf suggested that the "where as" section would take the place of a finding. A roll call vote was taken on the motion to adopt HJR 2 as the version before the Committee. IN FAVOR: Davis, Foster, Kelly, Kohring, Martin, Therriault, Hanley OPPOSED: Davies, Grussendorf Representatives Moses and Mulder were absent from the vote. The MOTION PASSED (7-2). Representative Davies MOVED to ADOPT Amendment #1 (copy on file). Amendment # 1 would require adoption of the resolution by twenty-seven members of the House and fourteen members of the Senate. Representative Rokeberg spoke against the amendment. Representative Davis noted that it only takes a simple majority to pass a law. Representative Davies pointed out that a simple majority can pass a bill, but that it is subject to a veto. Co-Chair Therriault observed that the original policy by the Legislature would remain. A resolution would only serve to direct how the original policy should be implemented. A roll call vote was taken on the motion to adopt Amendment IN FAVOR: Davies, Grussendorf OPPOSED: Davis, Foster, Kelly, Kohring, Martin, Therriault, Hanley Representatives Mulder and Moses were absent from the vote. The MOTION FAILED (2-7). Representative Kohring MOVED to report HJR 2 out of Committee with accompanying fiscal note. Representative Davies OBJECTED. A roll call vote was taken on the motion. IN FAVOR: Davis, Foster, Kelly, Kohring, Martin, Therriault, Hanley OPPOSED: Davies, Grussendorf Representatives Mulder and Moses were absent from the vote. The MOTION PASSED (7-2). HJR 2 was REPORTED out of Committee with a "do pass" recommendation and with a zero fiscal note by the Department of Commerce and Economic Development.