HB 76 - Proportional Rep on Key Leg Committees - Passes Out of State Affairs
[Photo: State Affairs Committee members (left to right) Reps. Johnson, Gatto - partly visible - and Seaton on panel. Minority leader Kerttula and bill sponsor Rep. Gruenberg with backs to the camera testifying.]
Right now there is a requirement that there be at least one member of the minority party on each committee. HB 76 requires that there be proportionate representation. The Legislative Council and the Legislative Budget and Audit Committee were established in Statute:
AS 24.20.010. Legislative Council Established.
The Alaska Legislative Council is established as a permanent interim committee and service agency of the legislature. The establishment of the council recognizes the need of the legislature for full-time technical assistance in accomplishing the research, reporting, bill drafting, and examination and revision of statutes, and general administrative services essential to the development of sound legislation in the public interest.
The standing committees such as State Affairs, Judiciary, etc. already have proportionally representation. Rep. Gruenberg has made the point that when the Democrats were in the majority, the Republicans asked for proportional representation on the standing committees and the Democrats agreed and established that. Standing committees are set up in the Alaska State Legislature Uniform Rules which are established to run the Legislature and are re-established every two years with each new Legislature.AS 24.20.151. Legislative Budget and Audit Committee Established.
The Legislative Budget and Audit Committee is established as a permanent interim committee of the legislature. The establishment of the committee recognizes the need of the legislature for full-time technical assistance in accomplishing the fiscal analysis, budget review, and post-audit functions.
This bill has been introduced regularly since 2003. It was brought up at an earlier session of the State Affairs Committee when there was some vocal objections. But at this meeting today, there was some discussion, but it passed out of the committee with no objection.
The questions today focused mainly on the fact that the Senate is divided by a coalition of Democrats and Republicans in the majority and just Republicans in the minority. (There are ten Democrats and ten Republicans in the Senate.) Even in the House, where the Republicans have a stronger majority, three of the rural Democrats have formed a coalition with the Republicans, in order, I was told, to have more clout in getting expenditures for their districts. So, the questions were about the difference between the coalition majority and minority versus the majority and minority political parties.
The impact in some sense would be more symbolic than substantive. When I was still a staffer, I ran the numbers, and the way the committees are set up, and with the proportion calculations rounding down (1.9 would be 1 not 2) the most that would be required by this bill would be at most three minority members on the twelve member Leg. Council and two minority member on the ten member Leg. Budget and Audit Committee.
With the coalition of Democrats and Republicans in the Senate, the current Leg Budget and Audit Committee has two minority party (Democratic) members out of ten. The new legislation wouldn't require more than that. The current Legislative Council has six minority party (Democratic) members - one on the House side out of six and five on the Senate side out of six. In the Senate, the Democrats are part of the majority coalition.
In any case, the bill moves out of the State Affairs and is now scheduled to go to Finance, which is a bit unusual because the Fiscal note on this bill was zero.
[Photo: Bill sponsor Rep.Gruenberg after it was voted out of committee.]
State Affairs Committee
Open 8:05
Gruenberg: HB 76 Bill which would allow minority representation in the Legislative Council and Legislative Audit and Budget. This is only fair. When the Republicans were in the minority, they asked that the standing committees be proportional and the Democrats agreed. We only have these two committees, which were not proposed [for change] at that time, to change. It would give us one more seat. It’s only fair, sometimes it’s hard for the single member to always be there.
Wilson: Thinking about what could happen. Used to be majority and minority were parties, but now they are not anymore. So possible now that one party could fill all the seats, because of our makeup. We have to be careful.
Gruenberg: Good question. Let’s say we are dealing with the Senate. The minority would be . . .
Seaton: On page 1 last line. We didn’t eliminate the parties, we moved it. I misinterpreted that last time, but it was just moved to section b.
Gatto: Reference at least twice here to two major political parties. An awkward phrase here if we have 15, 15, and ten. What happens if we don’t have one in the lead. Does it upset the proportionality if we have a tie. And then we have a third party that could be clamoring for a seat.
Gruenberg. No question it the two major parties are Democrats and Republicans…
Gatto: Excuse me. Are you speaking for the next 20 years?
Gruenberg: The only time I can think of we had anyone who was not Dem or Rep, was ???
Seaton: I’d point out that in section 1, that is the existing statute and is being removed, so if the language is problematic, it’s problematic in the existing law.
It seems like this has come about because the org of the leg has somewhat changed in function of parties and affiliations have changed and recognizing we have mixed majority and minorities in both parties. While this is offered by the minority, things are really much more even than that. Things change all the time. Even if there was a total political split - all Repubs in majority and all Dems in the minority - this doesn’t complicate anything and recognized that it may be mixed or more separate in the future, but this doesn’t complicate appointment by party to committees.
Lynn: Anyone in Leg Council or LB&A?
[Gatto and Wilson say they are]
Johnson: You have bill now - HB 288, any party that has 2500 members registered becomes a political party, when it passes, 2500 could sign up for a party. Suppose they get elected, where wuld they be. They would not qualify unless they elected enough people to be 25% of the party.
Gatto: What if we had 27 and 7 and 7? If not two major parties.
Gruenber: Neither would qualify, each would qualify for one, the same as if they were in one party.
Gatto: It’s existing language, that we have two major parties, we don’t have two parties.
Kerttula: The way it is, the two major political parties, if you had 25 7 and 7, you’d still have Rep and Dem because the second one hadn’t hit 25%.
Seaton: Unless they organized together, they wouldn’t have a rep.
Gruenberg: 1. As rep seaton said, no change from current law. I think when drafted, they didn’t consider the possiblity and it’s not likely. If there were 26 and two minority parties of 7 each, I suspect they would form together as a minority party and they’d be entitled to two and they would each get one seat. That’s what I would do.
Seaton: I don’t think we should assume that we have the seven joining the majority. Flexibility for the future and how people decide - we can’t resolve all those questions.
Gatto: In statute does it mention Democrat and Republican as the two major parties?
Gruenberg: I don’t think so.
Kerttula: I appreciate the opportunity to speak here before you vote. I’ve been the sole minority member on Leg. Budget and Audit, and it is a very difficult task. It has ten members and I don’t think anyone in this room wants to do without minoirty representation. It’s valuable. It’s part of our democracy. We’ve had a shift to these skewed numbers. We have coalitions now, which seems more Alaskan anyway. It seems this brings things a little closer to true representation. You will never have a skewed vote on the minority size, but they will have a voice. As a member in the minority, I fantasize that the shoe will be on the other foot. And you have my word that we’ll recognize the minority.
Petersen: could we reword page 1, line 9 and 10, could we just say people from each of the two caucuses? Would that solve the problem?
Lynn: I wouldn’t think so. Caucus more political. They change all the time. Changing party is like changing religion.
Wilson: I feel strongly about Leg Council - majority felt it was wrong, and we wanted to come together to fix something. We were not allwed to go back and rethink a decision and we probably should have. that’s why I feel strong about it.
Lynn: Sometimes difficult to seperate what a particular chair does
Seaton: It wasn’t that the chair, in that case (to Wilson). Chair was a member of the majority, but it was a coalition and a member of the majority. We shouldn’t get that confused.
Johnson: This in no way affects standing committees? They won’t become statutory?
G: Correct.
Johnson: Assume that tomorrow, under this situation. Finance committee made up of two co-chairs. Salmon and Joules - would they be the two minority members and then no minority members?
Kerttulla- They would have
Johnson - This has nothing to do with parties, but with coalitions.
Kertulla: Both.
Gatto: Difference between ‘the majority” and “the majority party”?
Kerttulla: Yes. They are mixed. It recognizes Alaska history from before any of us served.
Gatto: If we want to be sure the minority party has representation.
Gruenberg: The way it works now. Requires that there be at least one member from the Dems and Republicans. How internal make up is done is up to how the appointments are made. That is basically from the majority.
Today the makeup of leg council could be three Democrats. if the majority wanted to appoint them. That’s the right of the majority. The difference is that instead of having only one minority party, there would have to be two.
Seaton: This bill talks about major political parties and it shouldn’t. It should talk to majority and minority. Agree with Rep Gatto. We shouldn’t confuse Parties and majorities and minorities.
Kerttula: We want to come a little closer to fairness. I agree with Rep. Seaton.
Gruenberg: On behalf of the entire minority. Aprreciate your hearing it, and hope that regardless of how you personally think about it, I hope you let it advance. It will show 1. that the 26th Legislature is fair, and 2. that the parties can work together and so can the minority and majority can work together for the good of the state. Thank you.
Lynn: Thank you very much. Anyone in audience or online that would like to speak to the bill? Anyone else on the committee?
Gruenberg: Rep. Harris says he supports it.
Johnson: I don’t think. . . I would like to hear that from the Chair himself.
Gruenberg: I strike that.
Lynn: We expect that we trust each other.
Johnson: I don’t mean to impugn Rep. Gruenberg, I’m just uncomfortable hearing someone speak for others.
Lynn: This has been properly noticed and people could come and testify.
Committee discussion:
Jonhnson; Make up of the committees today are 8 - 4 and 8-6.
Lynn: I think the bill is looking at the overall picture, not just today.
Johnson: I just wanted to point out that it’s working today and I don’t want to fix something that isn’t broken.
Petersen: There are only ten on the LBA, so the numbers aren’t right.
Johnson: That includes the alternates.
Gruenberg: Not fair to lump in alternates, because they can never vote. They can’t bolster the vote.
Johnson: Then 8-6 and 7-3.
Petersen: Alternates are there if one is absent or if appointed to another position and isnt’ filled?
Lynn: I don’t know, but I would assume if one can’t be there for any reason.
Gruenberg: We also have alternate on ethics commiteee - strictly by party - and I had a conflict and stepped aside, and he took my place.
Johnson: One thing Rep Gruenberg said, and I agree 100%, I’m not saying that a majority member would necessarily vote with the majority.
Petersen: I would move CS HB76.
Lynn: No objections?
It moves out. I would thank the committee for the thoughtfulness of this committee’s discussion.
Scheduled Tuesday to hear HB 241 - Divestment in Iran, sponsored by Rep. Gatto. On the 11th, hearing with APOC on the impacts of the Supreme Court. Not to debate on how we feel, but whether legislation is needed before the August election.
