Relax. You won't worry about a 90-day legislative session until at least 2001.
Tuesday, House Speaker Mel Brown, who suggested that perhaps 90 days is a better time frame than the current 45 to consider a nearly $6 billion budget and complex matters, said he's received such concern from residents that further study is warranted.So, at Brown's request, the Legislative Process Committee, which undertook the original inquiry into doubling the Legislature's general session, sent the matter off to the Constitutional Revision Commission for study and recommendation.
The CRC is a group of lawmakers and citizens who yearly recommend changes to the state's 100-year-old Constitution.
And while it isn't required that the CRC study any constitutional amendment before it is passed by the Legislature and voted on by Utahns, it is considered proper political etiquette.
For the hot potato of lengthening legislative sessions, Brown says CRC approval is needed. The public's perception is that longer sessions may mean higher legislative salaries, Brown said.
"It's best that such a change, (if it comes at all), comes from a grassroots, citizen suggestion and the CRC is a good way to do that," Brown said.
For six months the speaker has talked about making Utah's Legislature more responsive to citizens. One way, he suggested last month, is to change the annual session.
Some legislators liked the idea. But the 90-day session was a heated, private topic during the Legislature's three-day trip to the Uinta Basin a month ago, with some members worrying that a longer session would mean more laws and a change in the makeup of the part-time, citizen body.
Tuesday, Brown presented surveys of Arizona, Colorado, Nevada, Idaho and Wyoming showing how long those states' legislatures meet, how many bills are passed and the makeup of the bodies.
There is no clear connection between length of session, number of bills passed and the number of attorneys, educators, business people and government workers who serve, he said.
Utah's Legislature currently meets in a 45-day general session. Lawmakers must convene the third Monday in January and adjourn - business done or not - 45 calendar days later.
While Brown and Senate President Lane Beattie have instigated reforms aimed at making the consideration of bills move more smoothly, most of the major budget and bill decisions are still crammed into the final week - giving, Brown believes, the unhealthy look of legislators rushing votes on weighty matters they don't fully understand.
So, Brown suggested that lawmakers meet for 90 days, only 30 of which would be days where the House and Senate actually meet in their chambers and debate and vote on bills. The other days could be for public committee hearings on bills, off days where lawmakers attend to private business or meet with constituents in their home districts.
Such a change would allow for more contact with everyday citizens during the session and more public input, Brown says.
But, he said Tuesday that newspaper editorial writers and other members of the public misunderstood his intentions. He's not looking for higher legislative pay. In fact, depending on how legislative leaders managed the 90-day session, lawmakers could actually spend about the same number of days in the Capitol as they do now.
Assuming lawmakers pass an amendment, voters can't get a shot at it until the 2000 election; no change in legislative meeting schedules would occur until the 2001 Legislature.