In the next few days when on Friday, the Alaska House of Representatives will be voting on a bill which would stop planned increases for state legislators as well as the top executives of the branch.
The bill’s approval is anticipated by Members of House’s majority coalition as well as the multi-partisan minority caucuses had already offered their support to the concept, but prominent senators in Senate members of Alaska Senate say the idea is dead when it passes through the building and gets into their chambers.
Although it takes 11 senators to approve the bill, it won’t require a lot to kill one if they are in the right place.
“I think this is a recent issue at the moment,” said Senate President Gary Stevens, R-Kodiak, on Tuesday.
Stevens along with other senators of high caliber have indicated that they believe increase is necessary to aid the executive branch to hire skilled officials as well as in order to enable low-income Alaskans to afford serving as members of the Legislature.
“Frankly this issue had to be taken care of,” said Sen. Bert Stedman, R-Sitka and an advocate for the increase.
A variety of Members of the House as well as certain members of the Senate have voiced opposition to the increase in light of the expected budget deficit. However, even if House adopts the bill to block raisings for senators do not believe that the measure will be approved through the Senate.
“I believe it will be passed to finance, the point where my bill is and won’t be picked into consideration,” said Sen. Shelley Hughes, R-Palmer and the proponent of the bill that blocks increases.
“It’s not happening,” Stedman said.
Prior to the final House or Senate take a vote on the bill, Capitol rules require the bill to be considered by at least one committee. If a bill does not get scheduled by an appropriate committee, it isn’t able to move forward without a special vote. Lawful rules place scheduling to the discretion of the chairperson of the committee.
This week, Hughes asked the state Senate to conduct a ceremonial vote on legislative raises.
Stevens immediately made the decision to refer Hughes inquiry to Senate Finance Committee, and Senators from the Finance Committee were able to confirm that the request was given directly to “Bert Locker.”
This term, used in the Capitol it has been utilized for more than 10 years to describe the manner in which the Sitka Republican was the one who was the one the person in charge of scheduling bills for the Finance Committee, clung to legislation in a negotiating strategy.
Since any bill that has an financial component must pass via the committee on finance. Being co-chairs of the committee is a powerful role.
In 2009 or 2010 ,staffers and former legislators have said they’re not certain of the exact date when then-Sen. Johnny Ellis, D-Anchorage was able to combine Stedman’s name and the name of the film “The Hurt Locker” to show his anger at Senator Ellis. He was furious with the Sitka senator, even going as that he made an unrealized movie poster that featured Stedman as the main character. The term was also employed in the annual legislative skits and the annual pantomime that pokes fun at Capitol operations, and it’s been around ever since.
“It’s almost famous,” Wielechowski said. “For many years it was the case that bills were sent into the bank to be paid off.”
Stedman declared that”I don’t mind” the expression.
“I find it kind of amusing,” he said. “You’ve just got to use the joke with a smile since whoever is the chair of bill on the Senate Finance Committee has got to keep an eye on the bank, and then somebody must say ‘no. Everyone knows that and they make the person the criminal.”
“As they say”All good bills are used to finance and expire,” Stedman said.
The reference on”Bert Locker “Bert Locker” is now obsoleteSenator. Donny Olson, D-Golovin is the person in the charge of scheduling billshowever, Stedman remains responsible for the operation budget of the Senate and its ongoing usage illustrates how the legislative process, or even a single legislator, can influence the flow of legislation at the Capitol.
This issue isn’t only relevant when it comes to legislative increases. A bill to ban discrimination in housing which has passed the House Committee this week probably has enough support to be passed by the state House the way it is being portrayed by its supporters however it has to be approved by the House Judiciary Committee that comprises those with the strictest views in the House.
The previous year a pension legislation for firefighters and police was blocked for several months by the Senate Labor and Commerce Committee because of the opposition of the then-chairperson, Senator. Mia Costello, R-Anchorage.
A former governor Rep. Kurt Olson, R-Soldotna an alternative nickname –“Kurt Locker “Kurt Locker” — due to his Stedman-like actions in his position as chairman of the House Labor and Commerce Committee Former staffers told the committee this week. (By the text messages, Olson stated that he remembers hearing the phrase and believed that it had been retired by the time he took it.)
Normally, scheduling doesn’t pose an issue for bills at this stage in this legislative session. There are nearly 50 days left before the constitutional deadline of this session as well as the possibility of an additional 121 days in the next session.
However, the issue of compensation is different. According to state law, increases will not be granted unless the Legislature approves (and the governor accepts) the bill that blocks the raises in the next 60-day period.
This means that the clock is ticking and the absence of any activity this year could mean the raises will automatically take the law.
Olson said that he’s yet to made a decision whether or not to consider hearing a compensation measure that’s coming out of the House.
To do this, it will require a discussion between them, Stedman, as well as Senator. Lyman Hoffman, D-Bethel Stedman, he added. The three co-chairs are who are in charge of various aspects of the finance committee’s business this year.
“We haven’t yet discussed this with our three co-chairs” Olson said. “And when we’ve discussed the issue, we’ll make the decision. However, I usually hear any bills because it’s a friend of mine who’s making the request. That’s why I have a predisposition.”
This article was originally published within the Alaska Beacon and is republished here with permission.
