Shorter session idea not all it's cracked up to be

June 14, 2005

The Alaska Legislature may be adjourned until January, but that doesn't mean legislators are done working. At least three state lawmakers will be making the rounds on the parade and fair circuit throughout the summer, promoting a ballot initiative to reduce the legislative session to 90 days.

As sure as salmon runs, fireweed and termination dust, Alaskans have been able to count on this idea coming around regularly each time the Legislature convenes. Neither major party can claim a monopoly on this issue, and this time around is no exception.

Just before final adjournment in May, two senators - one Republican and one Democrat - and a Republican in the House teamed up to co-sponsor the measure, which is requesting a vote of the people as part of statewide elections in either August or November 2006.

The idea is not without merit. At least in principle. A shorter session has the potential to save taxpayers around $1 million annually, according to supporters of the measure.

This kind of savings is reason enough to back the idea. But the wheels of government, especially in hyper-partisan Juneau, are not always well-greased, and don't always turn predictably.

The state's legislators, often with the aid of the executive branch, have shown themselves to be remarkably incapable of getting their work done within the parameters of the current 121-day session. The most recent Legislature, for example, could not take care of all its business without 15 extra days.

Each of those days cost taxpayers about $30,000. So the final tab for the special session rang in at around $450,000. Given that special sessions have, themselves, become an almost annual occurrence, it does not take a math whiz to see that any fiscal benefit of shortening the session could easily be reversed.

Those who support shortening the session also like to emphasize that fewer days of work would mean less legislation, which, in turn, would mean less bad legislation. But a shorter session might also unintentionally put more power in the hands of the executive branch and lobbyist corps, so less legislation could just as easily come to mean less good legislation.

Checks and balances are a vital part of our democracy. So as well-intentioned as a shorter session might be, it is difficult to endorse something that might mean less government of, by and for the people of Alaska.

We appreciate the good intentions of those who believe a shorter legislative session is best for the people of Alaska. But as long as lawmakers routinely take Fridays off (80 percent of the time in the recent session, according to Gov. Murkowski) and routinely find themselves in Juneau after the expiration of the 121-day regular session, we would prefer to see a more conscientious approach to legislative operations under the status quo.