No end in sight for budget gridlock ON EDGE: Alaska legislature accused of not doing the job.

The Legislature's special session hit Anchorage on Friday, with frayed nerves and Alaska Attorney General John Burns being asked to help broker a deal to put an end to the budget mess.
The House Finance Committee meeting comes as the special session is about to hit the two-week mark with no end in sight. At least some members of the public appear to be getting frustrated with the Legislature, with one man lecturing a group of lawmakers after the hearing: "You're not getting the job done."
The main issue is the language the Senate insists on having in the budget that says if Gov. Sean Parnell vetoes a single energy project, no energy project gets funded. The Senate won't pass the capital budget to the House until there's agreement on keeping that language, or identifying which energy projects that would be spared a veto.
Eagle River Republican Rep. Anna Fairclough argued the policy issue is getting lost amid all the finger-pointing. She said each of the energy projects should stand on its own merits but the Senate language forces them to all live or die together.
"The real issue is the process now links $460 million worth of projects together. That is unacceptable," she said.
Anchorage Democratic Rep. Les Gara defended the Senate to his colleagues. Gara said senators put in the language to protect the projects. He said the Senate had "legitimate fear" after the governor said earlier in the spring that there would be budget vetoes if the Legislature didn't agree to cut oil taxes.
Chugiak Republican Rep. Bill Stoltze testily responded that oil taxes are not part of the special session.
"Have you heard of the bicameral process, Mr. Gara? ... Maybe you should run for the Senate," he said.
Gara said the governor, Senate and House need to all work together and decide which of the energy projects should be included in the budget.
"We're never going to get out of this special session unless we all sit down together and decide which of these projects we're going to fund," he said.

CAN THERE BE A DEAL?
Testimony at Friday's committee meeting in Anchorage was by invitation only. A few members of the public showed up to watch, but it appeared to be mostly bureaucrats, legislative staffers and members of the press, throwing into question the notion that moving legislative hearings to Anchorage ensures citizen watchdogging.
Alaska Attorney General Burns, a Parnell appointee, testified about his opinion that the Senate language is unconstitutional because it effectively prevents Parnell from using his line-item veto on individual projects.
Burns' opinion is a view the Legislature's top lawyer, Doug Gardner, does not share. Gardner's memo says the governor could still issue vetoes and that the Senate's language may survive a court challenge.
In his testimony, Burns argued that his Department of Law sees it as a pretty clear-cut case. Language saying a governor can't veto a single project without torpedoing 100 other projects takes away the Constitutional power given the governor to veto, he said.
Burns said that if this language stands, a future Legislature could tie different projects together -- for example saying that if a governor vetoed any school project in Fairbanks, then schools in Anchorage and Tuntutuliak get no money.
Gara, the Anchorage Democrat, said he doesn't know which lawyer is right but agrees the Senate language needs to go. For that to happen, though, he said there needs to be a deal on the projects so senators will know what won't be vetoed. He asked Burns if he'd be willing to mediate a deal.
Burns responded that the Constitution says the House and Senate put together the budget, then the governor decides what to veto. "What I would be very loathe and reluctant to see happen is that process be corrupted and decisions to be made behind the closed doors," Burns told the committee.
Gara said governors never have public hearings on their veto decisions, and always make those calls behind closed office doors. There could be hearings on a deal, he said.
Burns pointed out that governors do have to say why they vetoed something, and that the Legislature has the final power to override a governor's vetoes.
Parnell has refused to say which projects he may or may not veto. He has said over the past week he won't abuse his veto authority or "target anybody for their stand on a particular issue."

BACK TO JUNEAU
Burns and other state lawyers said the Senate's budget language would leave projects open to court challenges even if not vetoed, putting them in doubt.
Nome Democratic Sen. Donny Olson watched from the audience as the attorney general testified. He said later that Burns is a Parnell appointee who "serves at the pleasure of the governor," and that there are differing legal opinions.
Parnell never specifically threatened to veto energy projects. But senators said their priority is to make energy more affordable. They say their package is balanced by region and they're worried vetoes will upset that balance. They also said they are trying to protect the appropriating power of the Legislature.
The package of more than 100 projects includes $65 million that Parnell wants for work toward the proposed Susitna River dam and more than $70 million for Railbelt transmission lines. Other major projects in the Senate's energy package include $28.5 million for expanding the Blue Lake hydroelectric project in Sitka and $17.6 million to start work on the Chikuminik hydro project near Bethel.
House members said they need to learn more about some of the projects, including Chikuminik hydro, but that the bigger issue is the Senate linking them. Chugiak Rep. Stoltze said the House Finance Committee today will be flying back down to Juneau, where little progress was reported Friday on the budget talks.