Legislature(2015 - 2016)HOUSE FINANCE 519
03/18/2015 01:30 PM House FINANCE
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB88 | |
| HB68 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | HB 88 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | HB 68 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
HOUSE BILL NO. 68
"An Act relating to the preparation, electronic
distribution, and posting of reports by state
agencies."
2:02:08 PM
REPRESENTATIVE JONATHAN KREISS-TOMKINS, SPONSOR,
communicated that the bill sought to digitize annual
reports and other printed public records. He felt that this
could save the state $.5 million per year in printing and
production costs. He relayed that the bill had a negative
fiscal note.
Co-Chair Thompson appreciated the negative fiscal note,
which reflected a savings to the state of approximately
$400,000 per year.
Representative Kreiss-Tomkins said that additional figures
from the Department of Transportation and Public Works
reflected a possible savings of $580,000 per year.
Co-Chair Thompson understood there were some reports that
were required to be printed.
Representative Kreiss-Tomkins replied in the affirmative.
He elaborated that the printing of the reports was at the
discretion of commissioners. He anticipated that documents
with wide public circulation would need to be printed. He
shared that publishing of certain reports could cost up to
$20 per copy.
2:06:48 PM
Representative Gara relayed that one of the money savers
related to contracting out for graphic design. He gave
former Representative Kyle Johannsen credit for work on a
similar bill in the past.
Co-Chair Thompson noted that there were people in the
audience available for invited testimony.
Representative Edgmon spoke in support of the legislation.
He believed the bill reflected that the state was becoming
more connected by broadband. He wondered if the sponsor had
received any pushback due to a lack of broadband capability
in areas of the state.
Representative Kreiss-Tomkins replied in the negative. He
shared that he had consulted with libraries statewide and
learned that libraries would sent physical reports to
residents statewide.
2:10:38 PM
Vice-Chair Saddler felt that the bill presumed that the
public interest in state government could be satisfied
online. He wondered whether the benefit of the estimated
savings would outweigh the benefit of offering the fullest
possible access to public information.
Representative Kreiss-Tomkins did not believe that bill
would jeopardize the public's access to information. He
countered that a large number of the reports that would be
affected by the legislation were not in circulation, in
hard copy, for the general public.
Vice-Chair Saddler asked about confidence in the $530,000
savings to the state.
Representative Kreiss-Tomkins believed there was
variability around the number. He believed that there would
be a savings to the state, but that it could not be
precisely projected how much.
Co-Chair Thompson remarked that glossy cardstock used in
printing increased the cost.
Vice-Chair Saddler thought that any savings could go to
expanded broadband in the state.
Representative Kawasaki queried the types of reports
covered in the bill.
Representative Kreiss-Tomkins answered that the bill would
apply to all state publications. He stated that there were
publications that the departments would choose to print. He
said that many of the documents that had inspired the bill
were the ones read by legislators and their staff.
Representative Kawasaki wondered if the legislature would
have less access to publications. He referred several
reports that he would have missed in an email link.
Representative Kreiss-Tomkins replied that legislators
might need to scrutinize their email more closely or search
for reports online. He thought that the legislation would
require legislators to be more proactive in seeking out
information.
2:19:22 PM
Representative Kawasaki wondered whether there would be an
opt-out element to the program.
Representative Munoz spoke in support of the bill. She
wondered about agencies that provided publications that
were key to their mission. She provided examples such as
the Alaska Marine Highway System (AMHS) and tourism.
Representative Kreiss-Tomkins answered that language in the
bill that would preempt the problem was located on page 3,
lines 14-15; exceptions would be allowed for agencies to
print necessary reports for the public.
2:22:04 PM
Representative Guttenberg asserted that the assumption that
residents statewide had internet access was inaccurate. He
strongly advocated for broadband expansion across the
state. He spoke to Section 3 of the bill. He worried that
the documents would difficult to locate, and queried
whether the documents would be easily found in a specific
place online. He wondered if libraries would be charged
with the responsibility of tracking the documents.
Representative Kreiss-Tomkins spoke to the universality of
internet access in Alaska. He opined that there were areas
his district that had poor internet access. He felt that
public access to information was relative; the bill would
not manifestly impair access to public information. He
offered that operations like the Alaska Housing Finance
Corporation, for instance, did not currently send a copy of
their annual report to every resident of Alaska. He
explained that the Alaska Online Public Notice System would
be the repository for documents and the State Library would
keep 5 hard copies on file in perpetuity; the archival
would be dual, digital and analog. He suggested that the
public notice system would need to be assessed for user
friendliness.
2:28:08 PM
Representative Guttenberg reiterated his concerns.
Vice-Chair Saddler cautioned that savings due to the bill
in paper and trees would not be reflected in all of
Alaska's natural resources. He expounded that graphite,
petroleum, gold and other resources would be used. He
warned that radical technological changes had unforeseen
consequences. He worried that the files might be
inaccessible in 15 - 100 years. He encouraged libraries to
employ archival storage techniques when handling hard
copies. He wondered if the sponsor would consider an
amendment to allow for a transition period from analog to
digital and that there be public notice when a document was
no longer going to be physically available.
Representative Kreiss-Tomkins replied that the spirit of
the amendment was well received. He wondered that if the
transition could be eased by agencies opting to alert the
public in advance of expiring documents.
Representative Gara directed the committee's attention to
Page 3, line 20:
Sec. 44.99.260. Print copy requests.
A person may obtain, at no charge, up to five print
copies of reports from the state library distribution
and data access center under AS 14.56.170 each day. A
person may obtain additional print copies of reports
from the state library distribution and data access
center for a reasonable fee under AS 14.56.170.
He highlighted Page 2, line 3:
Except as provided in AS 44.99.260, reasonable
[REASONABLE] fees for reproduction or printing costs
and for mailing and distribution of materials may be
charged by the center.
He wondered about the difference between the two passages.
Representative Kreiss-Tomkins replied that the state
library fee referenced in the bill was $0.10 per copy. He
said that the first 5 copies would be free, beyond that
there would be a minimal user fee.
Representative Gara concluded that physical copies would be
available to the public. He thought that the public could
be easily alerted to hard copies expiring with a one page
document. He said that the public would always want
Department of Fish and Game documents available in print
and the bill would make that possible. He referred to
publications from the executive branch and wondered how the
sending of documents would be approved by that branch.
Representative Gattis remarked that the documents in the
Capitol Building alone required a large amount of paper.
She spoke in support of the legislation. She believed the
issue was timely.
2:36:56 PM
Representative Kawasaki wondered whether the bill included
the legislative and judicial branches under the "agencies"
language.
Representative Kreiss-Tomkins replied that he would
investigate the issue further.
HB 68 was HEARD and HELD in committee for further
consideration.
Co-Chair Thompson discussed housekeeping.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| HB88 Sponsor Statement.pdf |
HFIN 3/18/2015 1:30:00 PM |
HB 88 |
| HB 68 Sectional Analysis.pdf |
HFIN 3/18/2015 1:30:00 PM |
HB 68 |
| HB 68 Sponsor Statement.pdf |
HFIN 3/18/2015 1:30:00 PM |
HB 68 |
| HB 68 Supporting Documents - ASCC Letter.pdf |
HFIN 3/18/2015 1:30:00 PM |
HB 68 |
| HB 68 Supporting Documents - Leg Research Report.pdf |
HFIN 3/18/2015 1:30:00 PM |
HB 68 |
| HB 68 Supporting Documents - OMB Report.pdf |
HFIN 3/18/2015 1:30:00 PM |
HB 68 |
| HB68 Summary of Changes ver A to ver H.pdf |
HFIN 3/18/2015 1:30:00 PM |
HB 68 |
| HB 88 NEW FN DOR.pdf |
HFIN 3/18/2015 1:30:00 PM |
HB 88 |
| HB 88 DOR Tire Fee Form.pdf |
HFIN 3/18/2015 1:30:00 PM |
HB 88 |
| HB 68 Response to HFIN Qustions.pdf |
HFIN 3/18/2015 1:30:00 PM |
HB 68 |
| HB 88 DOR Tire Fee Form.pdf |
HFIN 3/18/2015 1:30:00 PM |
HB 88 |