SB 18-DURATION OF REGULAR LEGISLATIVE SESSIONS  9:06:00 AM CHAIR WIELECHOWSKI announced consideration of SB 18. SENATOR GARY STEVENS, sponsor of SB 18, explained that the length of sessions was changed from 120 days to 90 by a very close vote of the public. The problem he saw last year was that a lot of bills died that didn't have time to be fully vetted. While the bills that passed after the ninety day limit were determined to be legal, many were passed with very little consideration, and no opportunity for public input. He is concerned that the legislature has been weakened by this change in session length. TIM LAMKIN, staff to Senator Gary Stevens, noted that SB 18 strikes a compromise between 90 and 120 days. Until 1984, there no limit on length of session: and in 1984 the 120 day limit was established. In 2006, with the passage of ballot measure 1, the length of sessions was changed to 90 days. That was a very low turnout election year, with the turnout being the lowest in several years. Following the first 90-day session, there were two back-to-back special sessions. The arguments in support of passing the ballot measure are not proving to be valid. Actual cost of the legislature has increased. 9:19:05 AM MR. LAMKIN also noted that currently, exactly half of the states (twenty-five) do not limit the length of their legislative sessions, and that Alaska ranks twenty-ninth in length of sessions. He added that every state is unique and has its own set of circumstances. SB 18 moves us closer to the middle in terms of session length. He also pointed out that legislation to shorten the length of legislative sessions has been introduced 24 times since 1990, with no success, and said that just because a bill doesn't pass, that doesn't mean it needs to go to the ballot box. Lots of bills that don't get as much attention are not passed, but don't end up as ballot initiatives. 9:22:04 AM MR. LAMKIN stated that since 2006 the candidate pool has shrunk by 20 percent, negating the argument of shorter sessions leading to greater participation and more candidates. In 2009, a House subcommittee concluded that strong majority of those surveyed in the House (both legislators and staff) wanted to restore 120 day sessions. He also emphasized that, with shorter sessions, power shifts to the executive branch. 9:25:02 AM SENATOR MEYER stated that he is biased on this issue, and would prefer to stay with 90 day sessions. He said he takes very seriously what the voters said they wanted, and noted that the legislature can always go to 120 days legally. MR. LAMKIN noted that the initiative passed by a very close vote (50.8 percent to 49.2 percent). He agreed that the legislature has the right to ignore statutes if it wants to, and can always extend by ten days if it wants to. He said that this bill is a compromise, with a 90-day first session and a 120-day second session. SENATOR MEYER said that legislators are paid a per diem, and the per diem is for 90 days. Therefore, he asked, why not have meetings on Saturdays, since they are paid for seven days per week? He questioned whether other state legislatures meet six or seven days per week. He also noted that, compared to other states of similar population, Alaska meets much more frequently. But, he added, we are a newer state and have more issues to deal with, including complex oil and gas issues. 9:30:42 AM SENATOR PASKVAN stated he used to think 90 days was more than enough, but once he was in the legislature his opinion changed. He noted that, due to time constraints, often legislators are just skimming the surface of issues, and not getting into the substance of what is really needed to provide the citizens of Alaska with the most efficient government possible. This raises a constitutional issue, because the legislature is the policy- making body. He feels that, for a young state, 90 days is not adequate time. 9:33:04 AM SENATOR KOOKESH admitted that he is also biased, and that he wants 120 days in both sessions. He believes that ninety days is not enough time to meet constituents, but he does like the idea of a compromise, with 90 days in the first session and 120 in the second. SENATOR GIESSEL asked why the bill had a zero fiscal note. MR. LAMKIN responded that the Legislative Affairs Agency should probably speak to the fiscal note, but money is in the budget in case of special sessions, meaning that the extra costs can be absorbed within existing budget. SENATOR MENARD joined the meeting. PAM VARNI, Executive Director, Legislative Affairs Agency, explained that in 2006, when the fiscal note was done, $800,000 was set aside for special sessions, which could be transferred back into personal services to pay the per diem for a regular session if the 120 day sessions were re-instituted. MR. LAMKIN noted that, with 120 day sessions, the decision to call a special session would require asking for supplemental funds, which could be an incentive not to ask for special sessions beyond the 120 day limit. 9:37:03 AM CHAIR WIELECHOWSKI called for public testimony. Seeing that no members of the public wanted to testify, he announced he would hold SB 18 in committee to allow public testimony.