HB 71-LEGISLATIVE SESSION LIMIT/PROCEDURES  8:07:54 AM CHAIR LYNN announced that the first order of business was SPONSOR SUBSTITUTE FOR HOUSE BILL NO. 71, "An Act relating to the duration of a regular session of the legislature." 8:08:02 AM REPRESENTATIVE SEATON, as joint prime sponsor, said SSHB 71 would repeal AS 24.05.150(b). 8:08:34 AM KATIE KOESTER, Staff, Representative Paul Seaton, Alaska State Legislature, presented SSHB 71 on behalf of Representative Seaton, joint prime sponsor. She said the proposed legislation would repeal the 90-day session, which was passed by ballot initiative in 2005. She reviewed that in 2007, House Bill 171 directed Legislative Council to appoint a committee to evaluate the 90-day session. The members of that committee were Representative Max Gruenberg, Representative Bryce Edgmon, and Representative Paul Seaton, all of whom are joint prime sponsors of SSHB 71, having concluded from their evaluation that the 90- day session should be repealed. She said this conclusion was supported by a survey, in which 31 members of the House showed support of repealing the 90-day session. That survey is available in the committee packet. She related that further information regarding the survey is available on Representative Seaton's web site. 8:10:49 AM MS. KOESTER began a slide presentation, which first highlighted questions asked in the aforementioned survey. Question 13 asked if the respondents believe that changing to a 90-day session from a 120-day session cut down on the Legislature's operating costs; 92.9 percent of the respondents answered no. Question 14 asked the respondents if they believe that they and their staff are able to communicate with their constituents as well during a 90-day session; 83.3 percent said no. Question 18 asked if the respondents feel that a 90-day session provides less time to schedule personal meetings with constituents and members of the public during session; 93.3 percent said yes. Ms. Koester said comments received regarding question 18 included that the 90-day session gives more power to those who know "the inner workings of the system." A further comment was that there was less time to meet with other representatives. MS. KOESTER moved on to question 21, which asked respondents if they believe that the 90-day session allows their personal legislation to be adequately evaluated by committees of referral; 90 percent answered no. Question 31 asked respondents if they see a value in comparing Alaska with other states with sessions shorter than 120 days, considering the issues dealt with by the Alaska State Legislature; 83.3 percent said no. Question 33 asked respondents if they believe that decreasing the time that the legislature is convened to 90 days cedes some of the power of the legislature to the governor or the bureaucracy; 86.2 percent said yes. 8:14:07 AM MS. KOESTER'S slide presentation next depicted a series of charts [included in the committee packet]. The first chart showed legislation introduced and passed from 1979 through 2010. She pointed to the years 2007-2008 and 2009-2010, and said there was only a difference of four in terms of bills that passed. She further pointed out that there has not been a substantial change in the number of bills introduced or passed when comparing the 120-day session with the 90-day session. 8:15:08 AM MS. KOESTER, in response to a question from Representative Gruenberg, stated her understanding that [the reason there were over 2,100 bills introduced between 1981 and 1982] is because there was at that time no constitutional limit on the number of bills that could be introduced. She said the amount of bills introduced dropped remarkably by the 1990s, so it could be said that the 120-day session did curtail the amount of legislation introduced. 8:16:07 AM MS. KOESTER stated that one of the arguments used in support of a 90-day session was that it would encourage more people to run for office, because the candidate would not have to spend as much time away from his/her job and family. However, she highlighted the chart labeled "Total Candidates Filed For Alaska State House & Senate 2000-2010," which shows that there has been a steady decrease in the number of candidates running for office. She turned to another chart labeled "Legislative Sessions Since Statehood - Session Lengths in Days" and noted that it also shows the length of special sessions held during that time period. She drew attention to a memorandum dated 2/1/2011, from Legislative Legal and Research Services, which shows how things have changed since the initiation of the 90-day sessions. Referring once again to the slides, she noted that the next chart shows "State Legislatures' Limits to Regular Session Lengths (Days)," and Alaska falls somewhere in the middle with its 180 biennial session days. MS. KOESTER said if the 90-day session is repealed, the state would revert back to the 120-day session provided for in the state's constitution, but would not preclude the legislature from meeting for less than 120 days. 8:19:01 AM MS. KOESTER directed attention to the fiscal note, prepared by Shane Miller of the Administrative Services Division, dated 1/31/11. She said the estimated cost of SSHB 71 would be approximately $800,000 for the extra 30 days of session; however, she explained that that amount of money was never removed, but instead was put into a budget to cover special sessions. She said a special session can be more expensive than a regular session. 8:23:32 AM SHANE MILLER, Finance Manager, Accounting, Legislative Administrative Services, Legislative Affairs Agency, in response to a question from Representative Gruenberg, offered his understanding that when the vote went into effect to change to a 90-day session, the thought was that there would be more special sessions, which is why the extra money that would have been used in a 120-day session was put aside. He stated his further understanding that there were indeed more special sessions as a result of the 90-day session. Prior to that the legislature had to approve additional funding for special sessions. REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG said presumably if logic is that a shorter session will yield more and more special sessions that are expensive, then conversely a longer session should yield fewer special sessions. He questioned why that is not reflected in the fiscal note. 8:25:12 AM REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON said there are committees that meet during the interim that would not have done so when session was longer. 8:26:23 AM MR. MILLER, in response to a question from Representative Gruenberg, said he does not know exactly what he means by "savings." He explained that the fiscal note was based on what the costs were for the 2010 session, broken out into a daily rate, and then that number was used to "run it back out 30 more days." 8:26:53 AM REPRESENTATIVE SEATON directed attention to a sentence in the second paragraph of the fiscal note analysis, which read: It is the intent of House Leadership that funding for the additional 30 days be included in this fiscal note and the special session contingency account remain to provide adequate funding for future special sessions. REPRESENTATIVE SEATON concluded that no one should presume that the Legislative Affairs Agency took it upon itself to put money in a special account. He said he thinks that the committee should not try to draw direct correlations between the costs and benefits. He said it is apparent that the costs for special sessions are higher, and there have been more special sessions [following 90-day sessions]. He said the idea that the 90-day session would save money is being called into question; it has not been a cost savings. CHAIR LYNN added that it cannot be said that 90 days is less expensive just because less salaries and per diem are paid. REPRESENTATIVE SEATON said another cost factor is that legislative staff used to have to pay their transportation costs to and from Juneau, but because it became more difficult to find staff willing to come to Juneau for a 90-day session, Legislative Council changed the requirements so that the legislature pays for the transportation cost of its staff. CHAIR LYNN commented that it is difficult to find good staff no matter how many days the session lasts, but indicated that [a 90-day session] "narrows the pool." 8:31:32 AM REPRESENTATIVE PETERSEN prefaced his remark by relaying that he has not worked as a legislator during a 120-day session. He then said he heard that the overlap of the 120-day session with the tourist season made finding housing difficult. CHAIR LYNN emphasized that the important point of focus should be how well the legislature serves its constituents. 8:33:19 AM REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG, regarding the fiscal note, cited AS 24.08.035, which addresses fiscal notes. He paraphrased the first sentence of AS 24.08.035(a), which read as follows: (a) Before a bill or resolution, except an appropriation bill, is reported from the committee of first referral, there shall be attached to the bill a fiscal note containing an estimate of the amount of the appropriation increase or decrease that would result from enactment of the bill for the current fiscal year and five succeeding fiscal years or, if the bill has no fiscal impact, a statement to that effect shall be attached. REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG interpreted that the requirement of the law is that the fiscal note should be limited to the amount of change that is caused by the bill. He then read the sentence from the second paragraph of the fiscal note referred to by Representative Seaton [text provided previously]. He stated, "It sounds like the additional money ... doesn't result from the bill itself but from the choice of House leadership to keep the special contingency account. That's a management decision that doesn't result from the bill and doesn't meet the statutory requirement." He asked Mr. Miller for comment. MR. MILLER responded that since the bill restores the session to 120 days, the fiscal note, "per guidance we had from House leadership," reflects the cost of restoring the extra 30 days to session. REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG asked if the fiscal note would still be $864,000 if that special account had not been kept alive. MR. MILLER said he would have to get back to the committee with that information. 8:36:06 AM REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON said she does not think that information is relevant, because "the decision was made ... when we started having 90-day sessions." REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG responded that the reason that decision was made was because leadership foresaw an increase in the number of special sessions as a result of the shortened regular session. He said, "That assumption would no longer be true if we have a longer regular session. So, there's no need for the special contingency fund, presumably because we'll have enough time." REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON countered that the reason there is no increase in the fiscal note is that the same money that was put aside for special session would now be used for a longer regular session, so, "there's no increase in money." REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG said he agrees, but observed that the fiscal note seems to be for an additional $864,000. MR. MILLER said the fiscal note is "an increment for $846,000." He then pointed to the previously quoted sentence in the second paragraph of the fiscal analysis and said it specifies that House leadership wants that money to remain in the contingency account to cover future special sessions. 8:38:08 AM REPRESENTATIVE JOHANSEN opined that it is not possible to surmise what was in the minds of those who made the decisions at the time they were made, so he doesn't understand why the committee is wasting time on this discussion. REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON concurred with Representative Johansen. 8:39:33 AM REPRESENTATIVE PETERSEN referred to the chart showing the number of legislative sessions and special sessions since statehood and observed that during the years when there was a 120-day legislative session, there were 25 special sessions in 20 years. He said he does not see a correlation between the length of sessions and whether there are special sessions. CHAIR LYNN said special sessions are unpredictable. 8:40:29 AM REPRESENTATIVE SEATON, in response to Representative P. Wilson, said under SSHB 71 the legislature would return to the length of session written in the constitution, which is a maximum of 120 days after the convening of session, which means a maximum total number of 121 days. In response to Chair Lynn, he said the effective date of the bill would be the next legislative session in January. 8:42:18 AM REPRESENTATIVE KELLER directed attention to the graph showing the total number of candidates who filed for the Alaska State House and Senate from 2000-2010, and he noted that the numbers dropped steadily during those years. He indicated that he thinks it would be an exaggeration to say that the entire reason for that decrease is because of the 90-day session, and he asked Representative Seaton to comment. 8:43:11 AM REPRESENTATIVE SEATON explained that the chart is just part of the data that gathered. He said although it does not prove that the decline in numbers of those running for office was caused by the 90-day session, it certainly proves that the 90-day session did not aid in increasing those numbers. 8:45:21 AM REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG referred to a copy [included in the committee packet] of Ballot Measure 1 [as presented in the Division of Elections' voter information pamphlet], regarding the 90-day session. He cited an excerpt of the statement in support of Ballot Measure 1, written by Senator Tom Wagoner, who quoted The Juneau Empire as follows: "Reducing the time away from family and other work also might encourage people to run for office. Competition and choice only helps the democratic process and ultimately might boost the caliber of candidates." REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG then related that the language that would be repealed by the proposed SSHB 71 is in the ballot language and read as follows: Section 1. AS 24.05.150 is amended by adding a new subsection to read: (b) The legislature shall adjourn from a regular session within 90 consecutive calendar days, including the day the legislature first convenes in that regular session. 8:46:52 AM CHAIR LYNN, after ascertaining that there was no one else who wished to testify, closed public testimony. 8:47:19 AM REPRESENTATIVE JOHANSEN said he does not think the overlap in the legislative session and the tourist season would be problematic for Juneau. 8:47:53 AM REPRESENTATIVE KELLER said he supports passage of SSHB 71. He talked about the importance of keeping balance between all branches of government and protecting the citizens of Alaska. He emphasized the importance of the extra 30 days of session, because it takes time to learn how to work within the legislature and get the job done. 8:51:02 AM REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON relayed that having served as a legislator during both the 120-day and 90-day sessions, she has found it is much harder to pass a bill within a shorter session. She further pointed out that legislation can be alive for a two- year period, which means that 60 days, not 30, are not available to work on legislation, hear from constituents, or communicate with other legislators when 90-day sessions are in play. She concluded that less time vetting bills leads to more unintended consequences. CHAIR LYNN concurred. 8:53:54 AM REPRESENTATIVE PETERSEN said he does not disagree with the arguments that have been made, but finds it difficult to vote against the people of Alaska who voted for the 90-day session. 8:54:44 AM CHAIR LYNN proffered that legislators are subject to the will of the people and that that will is reflected by who gets elected every two years to the House. 8:55:07 AM REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG opined that in three years the legislature has given the 90-day session a good try, which has allowed constituents to see how it works. He said a vast majority of his constituents understand that the legislature needs time to do a professional job. Regarding the comparison of Alaska's legislature to that of other states, he said Alaska has vast resources to manage and great distances to span. He stated his support of the bill. 8:57:50 AM CHAIR LYNN remarked that a longer session provides no personal benefits to legislators. 8:58:53 AM REPRESENTATIVE SEATON said Alaska has a robust initiative process. He said an initiative is just another way of creating statute, except that the initiative empowers the people and cannot be repealed for two years. He echoed Representative Gruenberg's statement that the 90-day session has been in place for three years. He directed attention to question 36 on page 14 of the aforementioned survey, which read as follows: Taking into account the effect of the 90-day session on all aspects of the legislative process, does the fact that the session length was established by the initiative process effect [sic] your willingness to change the session length? REPRESENTATIVE SEATON pointed out that 73.3 percent of the respondents answered yes to that question. He said, "The recommendation that has come forward to stimulate this bill is the recommendation that came out of the majority of the House respondents." 9:01:45 AM CHAIR LYNN said he thinks many legislators have heard from their constituents that they want the legislature to return to the 120-day session. 9:02:02 AM REPRESENTATIVE KELLER moved to report SSHB 71 out of committee with individual recommendations and the accompanying fiscal notes. There being no objection, SSHB 71 was reported out of the House State Affairs Standing Committee.