Absences hamper effort for 90-day session

February 4, 2007

When Alaskans voted last November in favor of the 90-day legislative session, few probably realized the consequences and challenges that change would present. After witnessing the inefficiencies of the daily legislative grind, I had to agree with the initiative's sponsors that too many days during the sessions are wastefully squandered. The reduction from the 120-day sessions to 90, at first brush, seemed to be a quite logical approach.

However, changing the time limit without also changing the habits of the legislators themselves is not nearly enough to solve what is essentially a time-management problem.

The new legislative session has just completed its third week, and already the rosy and optimistically stated desire to get a jump start on the 2008 deadline for the official 90-day session seems to be a pipe dream. The leadership in both chambers is starting to become cognizant of the realities and logistics of a shorter session and seem to be backing away from earlier ideas of a hasty finish this year.

First of all, some monumental issues lay ahead for the 25th legislature. Ethics reform and the natural gas pipeline issues are on the horizon, and it is imperative that they be effectively resolved.

Other important subjects and concerns will undoubtedly need ample time to be fully addressed. Hurrying the dance of legislation could cut short essential safeguards to sound policy decisions. Public input on proposed legislation may fall victim to legislators who will have even less time to meet with constituents or hear their concerns through testimony in committees.

The number of committees that a proposed bill goes through may have to be reduced. This could further lessen input and lead to more unintended or unforeseen consequences of the legislation that is enacted.

There is another side to this equation and there is some difficult math involved in coming up with a solution. Out of the 120 days for this current session, 34 are weekends. Legislators rarely, if ever, meet on those days, although they are paid for those days.

Occasionally, at the very end of a session, during crunch time, or for fear of an extended stay in Juneau, they will meet. In addition to weekends off, there are various holidays during the session that legislators take off.

Fridays are days that are all too often cut short, if not by whole committees, then by individual legislators themselves. Mondays, many times get a late start; and often enough, some legislators don't even return from their weekend hiatus until &#8220plane time,” which can be late into the afternoon or evening.

Occasionally, events happen that are out of anyone's control, such as storms, fog or some acts of God that prevent legislators from getting back from an absence. That scenario actually just happened this past week.

Legislators who were away for the weekend and returned Sunday night made it back, but the Monday returnees were prevented from landing by thick fog, and they trickled in over the next few days.

The point is that many legislators are the crux of the problem because of continually taking leave from their jobs. One Valley legislator has actually only been in Juneau for a few days this session, and another only about half of the days.

Remember that legislators get paid as if they were actually working, regardless. I suppose that it would be nice to be paid when not at work, or on weekends and holidays. But in the business world, that bird does not fly.

An argument for the shorter session is that it could save the state money. That is possible, but not very probable.

Public officials saving money, especially when their paychecks are at stake, has been an elusive goal at best and is fraught with many variables. Money saved in one area can be lost in another.

For instance, in-session per diem would go down, but long-term per diem would rise. Even one special session could easily undo any real savings from a shorter session.

In the end, time management is the real issue. Legislators have never managed to get done with their workload early. In fact, just the opposite is true. Last session is a good example and should serve as a recent and stark reminder.

Until some legislators quit running home at every available opportunity and quit wasting valuable time when they are here, shorter sessions seem doomed. As long as legislators can be excused from work, with pay, for any reason under the sun, then the time management dilemma will continue to be the fly in the 90-day ointment.

Valley resident Myrl Thompson is a citizen lobbyist and Capitol watchdog who is in Juneau for the legislative session. His Capitol Watch guest opinion column will appear here every two weeks. To contact him or to find out about subscribing to his weekly Juneau Report, e-mail myrl@ak.net.