HCR 5-UNIFORM RULES 20(A), 37, AND 49(A)(4)  DENISE HENDERSON, staff for Representative Kott, said that HCR 5 adopts three changes. Section 1 consolidates departments and deals with department name changes and places the Department of Corrections under the purview of the Judiciary Committee. Rule 37 in Section 2 deletes the carbon copy rule because it no longer applies. Section 3, Rule 49(a)(4) deals with special concurrent resolutions when disapproval of an executive order of the Governor is considered. Wording changes on page 3 line 15 & 16 are as follows with new text underlined and deleted text bracketed: "This resolution must be considered by a standing (JOINT) committee of  each house and may be…" SENATOR PEARCE offered amendment #1 on page 3 line 16 adding "meeting jointly" after the word "house". CHAIRMAN THERRIAULT objected to the amendment for purposes of discussion then removed his objection. SENATOR HALFORD observed that the amendment makes it more difficult to accomplish the goal and said that adding "meeting jointly" weakens the legislative branch. CHAIRMAN THERRIAULT said that his concern is that, depending on the majorities in the houses and the governor's party affiliation, changing the language might empower a single chairman to thwart the intention of the legislature and the executive order would be adopted. SENATOR PEARCE didn't agree. TOM WRIGHT, staff to Representative Porter, understood the concerns but said that there are a number of things that could stop the action other than the committee chairs. The make up of a committee could also lend itself to stopping the action. Tam Cook, Legislative Legal Counsel, said that, in the past, rather than having a joint committee meet, a standing committee met jointly with a standing committee in the other body to consider the special concurrent resolution. Thus, adding "meeting jointly" makes sense and conforms to past practices. SENATOR HALFORD said amendment #1 makes it a bit more difficult while the house version, as sent, is easier and makes it stronger for the legislative branch. CHAIRMAN THERRIAULT said it is past practice because the word joint is included. As worded, the two standing committees could meet jointly but they aren't required to do so. MR. WRIGHT agreed and said he and Ms. Cook believe it simplifies the process. CHAIRMAN THERRIAULT asked whether Mr. Wright thought adding the words "meeting jointly" would short circuit the five day notice and the entire time process. MR. WRIGHT didn't believe so, that the requirement to have the previous Thursday and five day notice would still be in effect. CHAIRMAN THERRIAULT said that if that is so, he isn't sure there is any efficiency if the second house must still adhere to the notice requirements. MR. WRIGHT agreed saying the process would have to be followed. SENATOR PEARCE said no, it would be read across in each house and referred by the presiding officers; it would then be noticed and there is a joint meeting. "It doesn't pass each house and then go to a joint session, it would come to the floor and be recommended to the joint session. It doesn't have to pass the house before it comes there." SENATOR HALFORD said that language in The Alaska Constitution decides whether provisions are effective or not. This is a simple provision and such provisions are waived by simple majority action. CHAIRMAN THERRIAULT agreed with Senator Pearce. SENATOR HALFORD said that the problem is that if a rule says it must be heard in joint committee then it is raised as a point of order and the point of order must be answered. "If it says it has to be considered by a committee in each house then it doesn't matter if it is joint or separate and "the point of order is clearly out of order when it is raised but it's a motion to defeat the executive order." CHAIRMAN THERRIAULT said adding the amendment reduces the flexibility of the legislature. Amendment #1, adding the two words "meeting jointly", is offered and there is objection to it. He asked for a roll call vote. SENATOR PEARCE withdrew her amendment after Senator Davis asked for more discussion before the roll call vote. She then raised the question of placing the Department of Corrections under the purview of the State Affairs Committee rather than the Judiciary Committee, as proposed, saying that there isn't much judiciary business in housing prisoners. She asked whether this discussion was raised in House committees. MR. WRIGHT said no, there wasn't that discussion, but he believes that the assignment to Judiciary is because of parole and probation. CHAIRMAN THERRIAULT asked where the suggestion originated. Number 108 MR. WRIGHT said that there was discussion with the drafter and the Speaker who thought Judiciary was appropriate and Ms. Cook concurred. SENATOR PHILLIPS agreed with Senator Pearce's argument. SENATOR PEARCE said that it could be useful to have the department assigned to the Judiciary Committee and when projects such as building jails were proposed there could be a referral to State Affairs. This would give the presiding officers a bit more latitude. SENATOR PEARCE made a motion that Department of Corrections move from Judiciary Committee to State Affairs Committee. CHAIRMAN THERRIAULT asked whether there were objections to the amendment to change the oversight of Department of Corrections to the State Affairs Committees. Amendment #2 passed with no objections. SENATOR PHILLIPS made a motion that SCS HCR 5 (STA) move from committee with individual recommendations. SCS HCR 5 (STA) moved from committee with no objections.