Lawmakers should lead by example

Since Alaska voters told their state lawmakers that 90 days is long enough to do the state’s business, many of those legislators have complained that’s just not enough time.

Following a statewide vote in 2006, the Legislature’s regular session was reduced from 120 days to 90 beginning with the 2008 session. Now entering their fourth year at 90 days, the state’s General Assembly is again packed with proposals to amend the Alaska Constitution. And again, lengthening the time lawmakers spend in Juneau is a hot topic.

Valley state Rep. Carl Gatto is the latest to propose lengthening the session as a sponsor of House Joint Resolution 2, which, if passed, would put another ballot question to Alaskans to return the session to 120 days every other year. What’s unique about Gatto’s resolution is that not only would state legislators have another 30 days in those years, but the state’s budget cycle would change from a yearly process to a biennial one. In essence, during the longer session, the Legislature would adopt a budget for the next two years.

It’s a dramatic change, one that would be a very hard sell to voters. Although a biennial budget process is an intriguing thought, the biggest hurdle Gatto’s legislation — and any other dealing with lengthening the legislative session — is convincing voters they really need that extra time.

The brutal truth those in our Legislature have to face is that until they show they’re willing and able to operate more efficiently and prioritize the time and effort they and their staffs spend on our dime, it’s unlikely any measure to lengthen the session will be met with public enthusiasm.

Since going to a 90-day session, lawmakers have spent time drafting, presenting and voting on resolutions like establishing an official Marmot Day in Alaska instead of Groundhog Day. In the current session, lawmakers are proposing at least three bills to create specialty license plates, proposals we believe reflect political posturing more than genuine efforts to take care of pressing state issues. If approved, we’ll have new specialty plates that say “In God We Trust,” “Choose Life” and one dedicated to the National Rifle Association.

We’re not saying these proposals don’t represent the interests and politics of many in our great state. But they’re hardly substantive issues that support the argument that the Legislature doesn’t have enough time to take care of the people’s business.

Many lawmakers would argue that bills like these don’t take much time at all— a simple reading and quick vote. But that’s just on the floor. Each one of them requires time and effort from staff that could be spent elsewhere.

And that’s the snag.

While legislators continue to introduce non-essential, feel-good bills such as these, we think they will have their work cut out for them convincing voters there’s a desperate need for more days in the legislative session.