Download Zipped File WP 6.1 1023LPCM.ZIP 9,600 Bytes

                

MINUTES OF THE

LEGISLATIVE PROCESS COMMITTEE

Friday, October 23, 1998 _ 8:30 a.m. _ Room 405 State Capitol


Members Present:    
    Sen. Leonard M. Blackham, Senate Chair     Rep. Evan L. Olsen, House Chair
    Sen. R. Mont Evans
    Speaker Melvin R. Brown
    Rep. Patrice M. Arent
    Rep. Brent H. Goodfellow
    Rep. R. W. Short

Member Excused:
    Sen. E. George Mantes     

Staff Present:    
    Mr. Stewart E. Smith,
     Managing Research Analyst
    Mr. John L. Fellows,
     Associate General Counsel
    Ms. Barbara A. Teuscher,
        Legislative Secretary

Note:     A list of others present and a copy of materials distributed in the meeting are on file in the Office of Legislative Research and General Counsel.

1.    Call to Order and Approval of Minutes

        Chair Olsen called the meeting to order at 8:30 a.m. and informed committee members that the agenda items for this meeting resulted from a questionnaire sent to the members of the Legislature.
                                                        
         MOTION: Sen. Blackham moved to approve the minutes of November 18, 1997. The motion passed unanimously.
            
2.    Veto Override Session Procedure -    

    Mr. Smith reviewed Joint Rule 17.01 which requires, in the case of a veto, that the presiding officer of each house poll the membership on whether the Legislature should convene to reconsider the vetoed legislation. The presiding officers are then required to notify the governor of the results of the poll and to provide each legislator with a copy of how each member responded. Mr. Smith indicated that some legislators were interested in changing the procedure, particularly in cases where the vetoed bill has passed both the House and Senate with a constitutional two-thirds majority. He reviewed the options with the committee.
    
    Speaker Brown mentioned that he gets concerned when a vetoed piece of legislation is passed by a two-thirds majority in both houses and there is nothing in the veto commentary showing an error or significant reason for the veto. Legislators who voted for the bill often vote not to reconvene when it comes to an override. Speaker Brown added that if a legislator votes for a piece of legislation during the session, the legislator should be required to explain publicly why the vote was changed in an override. He said that, in a situation when a bill is passed by two thirds of both houses, rules should require that legislators come back for an override.

    Speaker Brown asked if under certain conditions the legislature could automatically go into an override session. Mr. Fellows pointed out the existing constitutional requirements, but indicated that those requirements could be changed by constitutional amendment. Speaker Brown said most other states have the authority to convene themselves into a session. He said that the issue in this discussion is significant. He then mentioned the balance of power issue and told the committee that he has always been one concerned that the legislative branch, in our system, is in an environment where it continually loses power.

    Rep. Bush suggested that leadership send more information to help legislators make a decision on whether to reconvene. Mr. Fellows mentioned that there is some question about whether or not the House and Senate can convene themselves individually in the chamber for conducting business. He said that the better view seems to be that it is within the power of the House to convene to discuss House business and the Senate to convene to discuss Senate business.

    Sen. Blackham suggested that holding a meeting of a house for the purpose of discussion and polling members be added to the options of a presiding officer.

     MOTION: Sen. Blackham moved to clarify the rule providing that a body can call itself into a session to conduct business of the House or Senate. A quorum was not present and no action was taken by the committee on this motion.

    Rep. Arent said she is uncomfortable with the fact that the public cannot gain access to the polling results. She suggested having a public poll or an open meeting.
         
    Rep. Short addressed the possibility of having, as part of the April interim meetings, time set aside to discuss any veto overrides. The appropriate committee could discuss the issue and recommend to the body.
    
    Rep. Frandsen said that a complete process can be created that facilitates the issue of override and that the Constitution allows for it.

    Sen. Blackham told the committee that this process will generate a lot of override sessions and may become burdensome. Mr. Fellows explained that there is nothing in the constitution or rule that indicates how the poll has to be conducted. The Speaker and the President can choose to take that poll by mail, electronically, or to convene the House or the Senate under the existing Constitution and rules.

     MOTION: Rep. Short moved to amend the rule to provide that a poll be conducted on interim day and all committees who have a bill overridden from their committee could meet to discuss it; then, at 3:30 p.m., it would be debated and action taken. A quorum was not present at

the time of the vote, so no official action was taken on the motion.

    Rep. Arent agreed with Rep. Short's motion, but said she would add that the committees are different during interims than they are during the session and that she liked Rep. Goodfellow's suggestion that perhaps the committee that actually considered the bills during the session could meet at 7:30 a.m. on the interim meeting day.

3.     Standing Committee Votes Recorded in Bill Status - Rep. Arent suggested that, in reporting the vote in standing committees, each individual legislator's vote be recorded. That way the information would be available to other legislators and to the public on hard copy and the Internet.

     MOTION: Rep. Arent moved to have the actual votes of the members provided on the committee report. A quorum was not present to take official action on the motion.

4.    Notification of Concurrences - Rep. Arent indicated that, when voting on a concurrence, she tries to pull up the Senate amendments on the computer but by the time her computer responds the vote is often over. She said that she would like some sort of procedure where the speaker announces that they will be voting a concurrence on this bill in ten minutes so there is a chance to review the Senate amendments.

    Sen. Blackham explained the current procedure. The bill sponsor always has a copy of the bill and knows what has happened. Speaker Brown said that Utah has few concurrences compared to other Legislatures. The Legislative Management Committee discussed a process recommended by staff so that the House and Senate will not have to do so many concurrences on the appropriations bills. He then explained the process.

    Sen. Blackham mentioned that maybe they could explore the possibility of having a concurrence column on the board. Speaker Brown suggested that a rule could state that when a bill is returned for concurrence, it is automatically put on the board and must remain there for ten or 15 minutes. This procedure would give the legislator adequate notice of pending concurrences.

     MOTION: Rep. Arent moved that they have staff draft several of these options and come back at the next meeting to see if the committee can formalize something. A quorum was not present to take official action on the motion

5.    Appointment Procedures for Legislative Vacancies - Chair Olsen addressed the appointment procedure for a legislative vacancy. He said that the issues are: (a) what is the proper involvement of the executive branch in filling vacancies in the Legislature, (b) and whose decision should it be? He said the constitution states that it will be done by law. Mr.

Fellows explained that the House passed legislation that would have placed the appointment power with the speaker and the president. The governor lobbied the Senate to modify that approach. The process adopted by the Legislature retains the governor's power to appoint, but limits his options somewhat depending on what approach the political party uses to nominate candidates to fill vacancies.

    Rep. Short commented that he sees a situation where power is taken away from parties by letting others appoint the legislator. He explained the process. He said that it bothers him because these are the people who have to work with that legislator.

    Speaker Brown said that the decision should go back to the same people who selected the original candidate.

    Sen. Evans said that there is an assumption that the delegates are the voice of the people, which is not necessarily true. More research will be done by Rep. Short and staff will report back to the committee.

6.    Authority of Standing Committee Chairs - Rep. Don E. Bush shared his concerns with the committee and said that committee chairs should be considered experts in their subject areas and it is up to each one to become an expert. He indicated that leadership needs to call all of the committee chairs together to discuss their concerns and give input to the process. Mr. Smith reviewed the responsibilities of committee chairs. He said the authority of the chair is sometimes not used as effectively as it could be to facilitate the business of the Legislature.

    Chair Olsen asked Speaker Brown if there is a training session for the standing committee chairs before the session. The speaker indicated that the majority whip and the majority leader in both the House and Senate conduct a training session for committee chairs. Speaker Brown discussed the powers of a committee chair. He said that some chairs are exercising their powers effectively, and some are not and that it is up to the individual. Committee discussion followed.

     MOTION: Speaker Brown moved that the Legislative Process Committee send two letters: one to the newly appointed committee chairs, delineating the powers of the job and encouraging them to exert themselves; and the second to House and Senate leadership, encouraging them to continue to provide a training session and to also provide ongoing communication with committee chairs to coordinate the business of the session. The motion passed unanimously.

    Sen. Evans asked Chair Olsen to direct staff to provide a compilation of ways in other states that the powers of the committee chairs are enhanced.

7.    Performance-based Budgeting - Rep. Frandsen explained what is happening in other areas and mentioned that the committee could give some responsibility to the Legislative Fiscal

Analyst Office to study this process and come back to the committee with recommendations. He commented that when a program is put together, the Legislative Auditor General could help to identify the kind of information the Legislature should be collecting.

     MOTION: Sen. Blackham moved to request the Office of the Legislative Fiscal Analyst to form an internal committee to analyze any successes other states have had using zero-based budgeting approaches to help direct their fiscal decisions. The Fiscal Analyst would then make report to the legislative appropriations committee and make recommendations.

     SUBSTITUTE MOTION: Sen Evans moved that the committee recommend that the Executive Appropriations Committee request the Legislative Fiscal Analyst's office to study areas of state government that might respond productively to performance based budgeting or privatization.

8.    Legislation format, Purpose Statement, and Summary - Rep. Frandsen informed committee members that they could help to facilitate this process and improve the quality of the debate by providing for a summary statement with each piece of legislation outlining legislative intent. He said research has already shown what other states have done.

    Rep. Arent discussed the purpose statement and bill summary. She said these tools have to be balanced in terms of staff resources. She commented that she would like to hear from someone from the Office of Legislative Research and General Counsel in terms of their perspective on what this is going to cost in terms of resources.

    In response to Rep. Arent's request, Ms. M. Gay Taylor, General Counsel, Office of Legislative Research and General Counsel, said the impact on staff depends on what the Legislature is actually requesting staff to do. If the sponsor has developed a bill summary, it is accurate, and staff is not involved in revising it, there is no impact. If, on the other hand, the sponsor tries to put a spin on the bill contents or does not disclose all of the contents and staff is asked to rework it, that will take some significant staff time to work through. In fairness to the other legislators, it is important that the summary be accurate and not just a sales piece. She asked if the Legislature really wants to put staff in charge of deciding whether or not a sponsor's summary or intent statement is accurate. She emphasized that her view of staff role is simply as an advisor and staff should not control policy or exercise political power. She also noted if the summary is not amended to reflect amendments to the bill, is the summary really accurate or useful?

    Chair Olsen referred to a letter that was distributed from the chairs of the Workforce Services Interim Committee, which asked the Legislative Process Committee to find out if other states have adopted procedures that assist legislators in understanding the purpose of a bill when it is being debated, and that measure the performance of the executive branch in achieving the

purpose of the bill. Rep. Arent said she thinks it is unrealistic that these summaries could be kept up to date. Unless this can be done correctly, it could be a real problem.

     MOTION: Speaker Brown moved to continue this discussion at the next meeting and in the intervening time, ask staff to determine how other states use summaries and the advantages and disadvantages of summaries. The motion passed unanimously.

    Speaker Brown raised the issue of legislative salaries and noted what other states have done. He mentioned that the Legislature does not deal with this issue because it is politically sensitive. He said he would like to see the committee discuss the possibility of restructuring the process so that the Legislative Compensation Commission would have sole authority to set legislative salaries. This would take the politics out of it. If a recommendation were made by the commission to change legislative salary, the Legislature would have to take affirmative action not to approve it. Otherwise, it would take effect.

     MOTION: Speaker Brown moved that the committee continue this discussion and to place this on the next agenda. The motion passed unanimously.

    The committee discussed the time and agenda for its next meeting.

     MOTION: Speaker Brown requested to go through the in-depth budget review and then make a determination on whether the committee wants to complete the agenda or meet later in the month to deal with other items. The motion passed with Sen. Blackham voting against the motion.

9.    Adjourn -     

    MOTION: Sen. Evans moved to adjourn the meeting. The motion passed unanimously.

    Chair Olsen adjourned the meeting at 12:00 p.m.


F:\USERS\LPC\LPC\WPFILES\AG-MIN\10-23-98.MN2

[Back to the Interim Directory][Back to the Monthly Schedule][Back to the Committee Listing] Utah State Legislature