SB 126-REPEAL 90 DAY SESSION LIMIT  4:20:58 PM CHAIR SHOWER reconvened the meeting and announced the consideration of SENATE BILL NO. 126 "An Act relating to the duration of a regular session of the legislature; and providing for an effective date." 4:21:32 PM At ease 4:24:06 PM CHAIR SHOWER reconvened the meeting. 4:24:24 PM TIM LAMKIN, Staff, Senator Gary Stevens, Alaska State Legislature, Juneau, Alaska, reminded the committee that the bill was first heard last year and that presentation was on BASIS and in the bill packets. He directed attention to the sheet of new data in the packets that showed the following: Total Session Days  • Overall historical average from 1970-2021: 134 days • Average under the constitutional 120-day session from 1986- 2007: 131 days • Average under a statutory 90-day session from 2008-2021 137 Special Session Days  • Overall historical average from 1970-2021: 15.1 days • Average under the constitutional 120-day session from 1986- 2007: 10.2 days • Average under a statutory 90-day session from 2008-2021 21.1 days MR. LAMKIN stated that the data above demonstrates that the 120- day session hits the sweet spot to do the legislature's critical work of passing the budget. He highlighted that with the additional federal money coming in, it is particularly burdensome to make such critical budgeting decisions in 30 fewer days. He pointed out that the executive branch works year-round with that information and the legislature only works with it for 90 days. He maintained that when the people's branch of government was limited to 90 days, it was a direct shift of power to the executive branch. He offered to answer questions or go through the presentation the committee heard last year. 4:28:21 PM At ease 4:29:19 PM CHAIR SHOWER reconvened the meeting. He asked how many days, on average, the legislature meets during regular sessions. MR. LAMKIN directed attention to page 13 that illustrated that with few exceptions, the legislature met for 120 days during regular sessions. CHAIR SHOWER asked if the average number of days in session was 120, regardless of whether the statute said 90 or 120 days. 4:31:04 PM SENATOR GARY STEVENS, Alaska State Legislature, Juneau, Alaska, sponsor of SB 126, via teleconference, stated that the 90-day session has been tested long enough to see that it doesn't work very well. He reminded the committee that the initiative that established a 90-day session was spearheaded by legislators who wanted shorter sessions for personal reasons. It passed by a thin margin, it hasn't been successful, and circumstances in the legislature are different now than they were then. The legislature is responsible for the largest budget in the state and the largest permanent fund per capita in the world. He said it is very important for the legislature to meet for the time it needs to get the job done. It takes more than 90 days to be an effective policy-making body and to keep from being dominated by the executive branch. The constitution says 121 days and that's the right approach. 4:34:14 PM CHAIR SHOWER asked his thoughts on the fact that this would be overriding the will of the people. SENATOR STEVENS said the legislature has tried it since the public passed the initiative in 2006 and it hasn't worked. The public has lost out because their funnel to know what is happening throughout the state is gone most of the year. The legislature needs to be in the capitol minding the public's interest for the 121 days called for in the constitution. CHAIR SHOWER asked how other states do this work in less time. 4:36:56 PM SENATOR STEVENS restated that the legislature tried it and only once had been able to get the work done in 90 days. He questioned whether other states would be able to handle what they typically do and the federal money that will be coming in in a shortened time. SENATOR COSTELLO asked if the conflict between the constitution and the stature has resulted in higher costs when the Legislative Affairs Agency has planned on a 90-day session and the legislature is unable to meet that deadline. SENATOR STEVENS replied it is without question more costly when the legislature meets for a longer time. SENATOR COSTELLO clarified that her question was whether it costs more for Legislative Affairs to wind the session down when it plans for one date and the legislature extends beyond that time. For example, the Marine Highway System plans to move legislators' cars after 90 days and when the legislature extends beyond that date, they must quickly switch the schedule to accommodate a different exit date. SENATOR STEVENS said Legislative Council has had to establish exit plans for both the 90- and 120-day sessions and he would suggest the committee consult the council to look at that record. 4:40:07 PM SENATOR HOLLAND commented that it seems ironic to impose a 90- day limit and chronically run past that, and also have more special sessions. He asked if anything in particular had been identified to account for that. SENATOR STEVENS said more legislation is being introduced and each piece is typically referred to three committees in each body, which takes time. SENATOR HOLLAND offered his belief that 121 days was the sweet spot. CHAIR SHOWER argued that resolving the permanent fund dividend (PFD) issue would alleviate much of the problem associated with extended and special sessions. He asked the sponsor if he had additional comments. SENATOR STEVENS thanked the committee for hearing the bill. CHAIR SHOWER asked Mr. Lamkin if he would like to respond to any of the questions or supplement the sponsor's responses. 4:42:50 PM MR. LAMKIN followed up on the sponsor's comments, pointing out that the platform the proponents of the 90-day session used was misleading. The proponents argued that a 90-day session policy would: • reduce the cost of state government • align with the policy in other states • encourage more people to run for office MR. LAMKIN said every argument that was used had since proven not to be the case. Speaking to Senator Holland's and Senator Costello's questions, he pointed out that the promised cost savings had not been realized. In fact, short notice changes for things like ferry schedules add to the costs. Costs for special session and interim meetings have also gone up. 4:44:51 PM CHAIR SHOWER offered his belief that opening the door six or seven years ago to not follow the formula for the statutory dividend had caused chaos. He asked Mr. Lamkin to comment now or follow up with data that shows the largest cost spikes since the formula had not been followed. MR. LAMKIN responded that the 90-day session took effect in 2007 and the legislature had met that deadline just twice. He highlighted that Senator Stevens was Senate President those two years. He said it's fair to say that the PFD debate contributed to special sessions, but he wouldn't say that was the entire reason. CHAIR SHOWER agreed the PFD was just a contributor, not the sole reason for special sessions. MR. LAMKIN offered his belief that if the status quo is maintained, issues will continue to come up that will keep the legislature beyond 90 days. 4:47:45 PM CHAIR SHOWER held SB 126 in committee.