HJR 2 - REPEAL OF REGULATIONS BY LEGISLATURE The next order of business to come before the House State Affairs Standing Committee was HJR 2, Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the State of Alaska relating to repeal of regulations by the legislature. CHAIR JAMES called on Representative Norman Rokeberg, sponsor of HJR 2, to present the resolution. Number 1157 REPRESENTATIVE NORMAN ROKEBERG, Alaska State Legislature, pointed out to the committee members that Chair James was a co-sponsor of the resolution. This issue had been before the body before; it was passed by the Nineteen Alaska State Legislature. The proposed amendment would allow the legislature to write the constitutional equilibrium within the balance of the separation of powers. It was important that the resolution was adopted to present it to the voters for their approval. The resolution merely stated that the legislature could by a joint resolution repeal a regulation adopted by the state. "It speaks to the enormous amount of lawmaking that's going on by the Administration." And, in my opinion, it was the purview and the constitutional responsibility of the legislature to make laws and to set policies in the state. The letter in opposition from the Department of Law, dated February 28, 1997, made the case for the resolution. He cited the court case of State of Alaska v. Live Volunteers whereby it was decided that the legislature did not have the right to annul regulations by a concurrent resolution in both houses. The decision generated the efforts to amend the constitution. The votes failed because of a lack of public support and the failure to educate the public properly regarding the roles of the legislature and the executive branch. The Alaska State Government was a very strong executive government as a result of the constitutional model developments of the 1940's and 1950's in the United States. He reiterated, the resolution was intended to save money by providing that the Administration followed the intent of the legislature. There were a number of letters of support included in the bill package. He continued to further obtain examples of support to enable the movement of the bill forward. Number 1358 REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ asked Representative Rokeberg to explain how the resolution would work if it was adopted? Number 1372 REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG explained many times the legislature passed a bill that required the adoption of regulations by the Administration to implement the law. The Administration promulgated the regulations under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). The APA required only one public hearing, but many times there was more than one hearing because of public comments. The legislature continued to look at that process and this resolution was one element in providing a balance. REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG further explained that many times the Administration missed the intent of the legislature when adopting regulations. He cited the Airport Leasing Bill that passed last year. The regulations did not meet the intent of the legislation. He testified at public hearing on the regulations himself. Progress had been made, but the last draft had yet to be seen. This was only one example of many. The last election was held in 1986, of which, 9,500 regulations had been drafted and promulgated since that time. The attorney general said it was the constitutional right of the Governor to have the ability to veto. The Governor would have total control over anything that the legislature did with his veto power if the legislature did not have the super majority to override the veto. "The Governor in essence could write law outside the body of this legislature and with the veto power control the law making process of the state, in essence." That was the balance and equilibrium that he was talking about. The legislature, as the proper law making body, needed to be able to override by nullification improper and unintended regulations. Number 1584 REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY commented that he had a bill in the Nineteenth Alaska State Legislature relating to this issue. In addition, he believed philosophically that the legislature would not succeed in getting the public to support the resolution. "For the simple reason that the public would perceive this as the legislature trying to give itself more power and the public does not wish to give any form of government more power." He did intend to support Representative Rokeberg 100 percent, however. REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY further explained that he philosophically believed in repealing the right that the legislature gave to the Governor to make laws. In addition, the courts upset the balance because it said that the legislature could delegate its power to make laws, but it could not reserve to itself the right to veto laws. He asked Representative Rokeberg, if the legislature failed in this regard, would he support using the authority of the legislature to take away the authority from the Governor the right to make laws? Number 1656 REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG replied he understood the intent of Representative Vezey. However, his bill was a shot gun approach rather than a rifle approach. He would be amenable to a rifle approach and not a shot gun approach by destroying all regulations. Number 1691 REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY replied, "So, you favor the right of the Governor to make law?" REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG replied, "No, I do not." Like any legislator he would like to further review the intentions of Representative Vezey's bill. REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY asked Representative Rokeberg if he was familiar with his bill that he was talking about? REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG replied, "No, not specifically." REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY explained that his bill said if the Administration wanted law it would have to present it to the legislature for ratification for his signature. REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG replied, in other words, the ratification of any regulations promulgated. REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY replied the legislature did that by doing away with the regulation process and did it through the statutory process. The regulations became the statutes. REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG replied he would support that. Number 1745 REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ asked Representative Rokeberg if he had any dialogue with the Department of Transportation regarding the airfield issue raised earlier? And, how did it pan out? Number 1757 REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG replied he did have dialogue, of which, some of it panned out and some of it did not. That was the issue - a clash of intentions. Many times legislation was remedial in form; it was intended to straighten out regulatory moras by giving statutory guidance to the department. Nevertheless, it was too complex of an issue so some regulations were needed. He was mostly concerned with the end-product, however. Number 1809 CHAIR JAMES explained she spoke this morning on the subject of regulating the regulators. This was a stressful issue. She appreciated Representative Rokeberg for bringing this issue forward. The support of the public was needed to reform the regulations. The issue needed to be attacked on every side. In response to Representative Vezey's concern of doing away with the Administrative Procedure Act, she did not find any legislator that was willing to put extra effort into the statutory construction so that the regulations were not needed. She saw legislators willing to include a caveat that said "the department shall write regulations to implement this chapter", for example, giving away the responsibility. Number 1930 REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG stated, in response to the concern of Representative Vezey and the passage of the resolution, that he wanted to move the resolution through both bodies this year to give the supporters the opportunity to organize. Number 1982 REPRESENTATIVE HODGINS moved that HJR 2 move from the committee with the attached fiscal note(s) and individual recommendations. Number 2006 REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY objected for the purpose of taking a roll call vote. CHAIR JAMES called for a roll call vote. Representatives James, Hodgins, Ivan and Vezey voted in favor of the motion. Representatives Berkowitz and Elton were not present for the vote. House Joint Resolution 2 was so moved from the House State Affairs Standing Committee.