Governor promises not to sign gas line contract without legislative OK

Kristen Nelson

Petroleum News

The Alaska House Judiciary Committee accepted assurances from Jim Clark, Gov. Frank Murkowski’s chief of staff, and a letter from Attorney General David Marquez, that the governor would not sign a fiscal contract without the approval of the Legislature.

The committee’s chair, Lesil McGuire, R-Anchorage, said members of the committee wanted to make sure the Legislature is involved in the contract decision. Rep. Max Gruenberg, D-Anchorage, suggested a constitutional amendment to ensure that any natural gas resources development contract obliging the state to spend at least $1 billion is subject to approval by a majority of both the House and Senate. The proposal, House Joint Resolution 301, would have put the constitutional amendment before voters at the November general election and made the amendment retroactive to June 30.

Clark said the administration is proceeding on the basis that the Legislature’s role is important, and said the administration doesn’t have authority on fiscal certainty and needs that from the Legislature.

He said the letter from the attorney general made it “absolutely clear” that the administration sees the law as requiring legislative approval and ratification of the contract. He said the attorney general has made it clear to the governor that the law requires the Legislature’s role. The administration believes the law requires the Legislature to both ratify the amendments and the contract, he said.

Gruenberg said he had reviewed the letter and since the administration was on record on the issue he didn’t see the need for the resolution.

What if court says Legislature has no role

Clark said the administration believes the contract will go to the Alaska Supreme Court; he said the administration doesn’t know what the court will say, but said the administration would have to consult with the Legislature on what to do next.

Gruenberg said his concern grows out of his earlier experience in the Legislature: the Legislature disapproved the Exxon Valdez settlement, which Gov. Hickel went ahead and signed. The issue doesn’t just involve this contract, this Legislature and this governor, he said. It’s difficult to know what contracts should be subject to legislative approval, but if the governor signed the contract without legislative approval, any lawsuit would involve the Legislature weighing in on this issue, Gruenberg said.

Clark said that if the Legislature approved the amendments and ratified the contract and the supreme court said the constitution has been violated, the administration and Legislature can look at the court’s opinion and decide what to do going forward. “We will all have a role if the Supreme Court strikes this down for any reason,” Clark said.

Rep. Peggy Wilson, R-Wrangell, noted that whatever the governor did, the Legislature couldn’t be cut out because the administration would need money to go forward, and the Legislature has to approve money.

Clark said he couldn’t say what the court might say and what the issues in an opinion might be, but said the administration would have to consult with the Legislature on what to do next. Moving ahead on a gas pipeline involves the powers of the purse string, he said, and the administration can’t move without the Legislature.

Clark said the administration wanted to get past the issue of a constitutional amendment and work on the amendments. He said he was prepared to stay and answer questions, but felt the hypothetical questions put him “in never-never land.”

McGuire said she didn’t want to continue down the path of asking the same question over and over, and said the committee would address the amendments at its July 25 meeting.

The resolution was held.