Listen up—A close
observer of the legislative process recently passed  around a tidbit. Old-timer Rep. Richard
Foster spoke to new legislators during the pre-session orientation
and offered this observation: “During these early days of the first
session, things move very slowly around here. By the middle of
March, things will then start to taper off.”
Listen up
#2—Legislators came to Juneau last week with this
constituent message awaiting them: “As a new beginning, make usury a
crime with  HARSH penalties for the guilty. Now. Continue by talking
about abolishing ALL debt/usury for the good of ALL our relations
worldwide. Now. If you choose not to, eternal damnation in the fiery
pits of the hell of YOUR own making is waiting for you
patiently.”
Nothin’ to be proud
of—The Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services
Administration in the U.S.  Dept.
of Health and Human Services says Alaska ranks #1 by percentage of
population age 12 and over reporting illicit drug use in the past
month. California would have been my guess for #1 but they were
ranked 13th. New Hampshire and Vermont were 2 and 3 with Nevada
picking up 4th on the list of dubious distinction.
I’m a press release; read
me—A Wednesday email notice about a  Democrat press release was titled: “I’m Frank, fly
me.” The headline of the press release read: “Governor Murkowski
Slips Jet Back in Budget.” The subhead read: “Frank still wants to
join the jet set.”
Local preschool children receive help on a math project from
Sen. Elton last week as he met with local childcare center
directors. Center directors are seeking increased public support for
high quality early learning. Photo taken by AEYC-SEA at Dancing
Bear Too Montessori.
|
Almost 70
years ago a gentleman named Albert Engel had a thought that proves
history can teach us something: “A mugwump is one of those boys who
always has his mug on one side of the political fence and his wump
on the other.”
I was reminded of Mr. Engel’s observation when, during
the 2004 campaigns (the election some call “our recent troubles”),
most candidates from the top of the ticket on down put their mugs on
the side of open and  ethical government but have put their wumps somewhere else
since. The most glaring separation of mugs and wumps was the recent
partisan vote in the U.S. House a couple of weeks ago that
handcuffed the House ethics committee, though House members did back
away from an especially egregious rule change that allows an
indicted Congressman to hold a congressional leadership
position.
In Alaska’s Capitol, right here in Quiver City (this is
not necessarily a reference to fortitude, as I write this it’s 0
degrees and breezy), we may wish to match legislative wumps with
mugs following a January 8 finding from our legislative ethics
committee. The ethics panel, comprised of five public members and
four legislators, advised the legislature to abandon a bad habit
that often trumps our obligation to make public the subject matter
of bills heard in committee (that’s codified in the Uniform Rules
adopted by the legislature). The rule is plain, common sense—the
public must be allowed to weigh in before a committee votes. Alaska
statutes tell the ethics committee to use the Uniform Rules when
judging if the legislature followed open meeting
principles.
On January 8, the ethics panel, in an advisory opinion,
said the legislature breached its obligation to observe open meeting
principles and to adequately notify the public when an extremely
controversial bill made it all the way to the Senate floor without
the public being aware of subject matter that had been changed
dramatically. That advisory opinion prompted serious separation of
legislative mugs and wumps. The wails and the gnashing of teeth
post-decision certainly did not match the smiley face rhetoric
pre-election when most legislative candidates pledged their fealty
to open caucuses and meetings.
The
advisory opinion was requested by Senate Finance Committee members
Lyman Hoffman and Donny Olson. They could have filed an ethics
complaint, which may have led to suggested sanctions, but they
instead asked for advice so the legislature could be guided to
different behavior instead of punished for past bad
behavior.
Here’s the fact situation that led to the ethics panel
decision:
1) On April 25, 2003, the Senate Finance Committee set
aside SB35, a budget bill by the governor, and a few weeks later
passed the budget in a different bill;
2) At the end of
the 2003 legislative session, even Alaskans who closely follow the
legislature assumed SB35 had become an artifact of that session
because the substance of that bill was incorporated in another
bill that passed both the House and the Senate;
3) On
March 4, 2004, nearly a year later, the Senate Finance Committee
brought up this presumed artifact, SB35, under the committee
rubric “Bills Previously Heard”;
4) On March 4, 2004, the
Senate Finance Committee had about 100 bills eligible to be
brought up under the rubric “Bills Previously Heard” but only
brought up SB35 (we can’t expect all Alaskans who support, oppose
or wish to amend each of those 100 or so bills to really come to
each committee meeting or tie into the teleconference in the rare
case the bills come up under “Bills Previously Heard” can
we?);
5) When the committee brought SB35 up on that
fateful March day in 2004, the title which described the old SB35
was gone, stripped and replaced in some backroom at someone’s
behest, and the language in the body of the bill was gone, also
stripped and replaced with a subject matter vastly different from
the original SB35 (a gross way to describe the difference between
old and new bill is the old bill was 45 pages long and the new
bill 4 pages);
6) In the blink of an eye, the new SB35
(now a partial funding bill plus an authorization for the
legislature to stick a spending straw into the Constitutional
Budget Reserve) was passed on a straight party line vote and over
the objections of Sens. Hoffman and Olson;
7) Most people
in the building, legislators, staff, lobbyists and public were
reeling with SB35 sticker shock even as the new SB35 was rushed to
the Senate Rules Committee while the ink was drying and placed on
a supplemental same-day Senate floor calendar;
8) In a
couple of hours, SB35 went from first to second reading on the
floor of the Senate (as we all know, public testimony is not
allowed on the Senate floor);
9) The bill passed the
Senate the next day even though no member of the public had an
opportunity to review and testify on the brand spanking new
provisions of the bill (the immediate effective date failed);
and
10) There was no need for speed on this bill since
events 3-9 happened on the 53rd day of the session with 58 days
remaining.
Given this fact situation, the argument the public had even a
hint of the new subject matter in SB35 simply because the Senate
Finance Committee noted they might take up bills previously heard
was rejected by all the public members of the ethics committee and
half the legislative members. (I was one of the two legislators that
voted with the public members.) Given the facts, there was simply no
other logical decision—of course the handling of the new SB35
precluded any public participation and debate on a matter of
extraordinary importance: spending access to our savings account and
the disposition of hundreds and hundreds of millions of
dollars.
Nevertheless, some legislators actually argued the ethics
committee should not condemn legislative “traditions” that allow
artifact bills, in the dustbin for nearly a year, to morph behind
closed doors and pass the Senate without an opportunity for the
public to testify on a bill that was written and passed by the
Senate in the space of two days. That practice eviscerates the
concept of open meetings.
Alaskans
can be proud of the public members of their legislative ethics
committee and the decision they reached despite some furious
lobbying and arguing by legislative leaders. It should be noted the
terms of three of the committee’s public members expired just after
the Jan. 8 decision but all three have been re-nominated by the
Chief Justice of the Alaska Supreme Court. They’ll face legislative
hearings on their reappointment.
If they are
not confirmed, or are badgered during the legislative hearings on
their nomination by legislators who disliked their decision, I hope
Alaskans will start talking to a few legislative mugs and, if
necessary, kicking a few wumps back to the other side of the
fence. |
