I agree with the Anchorage Daily News editorial reprinted in the June 1 Juneau Empire that stated the voters made a mistake in limiting sessions to 90 days. As we have witnessed, "special sessions" are not at all special; they should be called "extra session" as in baseball we don't call them "special innings" because they happen all too frequently to be special. What I don't understand is why our legislators, the people we elect to be our think-outside-the-box visionary types, haven't been able to come to terms with this, other than to whine about it.
Sound off on the important issues at
For instance, who says the 90 days have to be consecutive? Why don't they sit down at home, right after Christmas, oh excuse me, the "winter holiday season," and think of what legislation is needed over the upcoming session. Brain storm if you will. E-mail their thoughts to a couple of their contemporaries, and maybe one of the "morons" from the other political party for some feedback.
Then when the session actually begins, they could spend the next 30 days introducing their draft legislation, preliminary discussions, press coverage, etc. Then recess for the next 30 days.
They could go home. The constituents that don't have access to the legislators, or don't have e-mail, will have a chance to communicate their views on the different pieces of legislation out there.
Then come back to Juneau for the final 60 days and actually be prepared to get something done.
This would go a long way in shutting up folks, such as The Mat-Su Frontiersman, that want to move the legislative sessions. On the subject of reprinted editorials, I am really surprised that no one has pointed out the big holes in the Frontiersmen's argument for moving the session. One, all those indicted to date, except for one are from Southcentral. Two, if anything, moving the sessions to Southcentral would only have given the VECO executives and the one convicted lobbyist more of an opportunity to do their dirty deeds, not less.