Legislature(2015 - 2016)HOUSE FINANCE 519
03/31/2015 01:30 PM House FINANCE
Note: the audio ![]()
and video ![]()
recordings are distinct records and are obtained from different sources. As such there may be key differences between the two. The audio recordings are captured by our records offices as the official record of the meeting and will have more accurate timestamps. Use the icons to switch between them.
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB68 | |
| HB143 | |
| HB135 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | HB 81 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| *+ | HB 143 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | HB 135 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| += | HB 68 | TELECONFERENCED | |
HOUSE BILL NO. 68
"An Act relating to the preparation, electronic
distribution, and posting of reports by state
agencies."
2:29:53 PM
Co-Chair Neuman MOVED to ADOPT the proposed committee
substitute for HB 68, Work Draft 29-LS0352\I (Nauman,
03/24/15).
JANE PIERSON, STAFF, REPRESENTATIVE STEVE THOMPSON,
reviewed the changes in the Committee Substitute (CS) bill.
She reported that two changes were made to the bill found
on page 3. The first change on lines 16 through 18 read as
follows:
(b) A report produced and distributed by a state
agency shall prominently state the Internet website
where a digital copy and the physical address where a
print copy of the report may be found.
Ms. Pierson identified the second change found on line 24:
Sec. 44.99.260. Print copy requests. A person may
obtain, at no charge, up to two print copies of
reports from the state library distribution and data
access center under AS 14.56.170 each day…
Ms. Pierson communicated that "two" was changed from "four"
due to the large size of some of the reports.
REPRESENTATIVE JONATHAN KREISS-TOMKINS, SPONSOR, recapped
HB 68. He explained that the legislation digitized state
reports that were printed in large quantities at a
"significant" cost to the state. He believed that the bill
modernized how the state disseminated reports and
information.
Co-Chair Neuman asked for a description of the legislation
and reasons why the bill was important. Representative
Kreiss-Tompkins noted that HB 68 was projected to save the
state a half million dollars each year. He believed that
the bill increased the public's access to public
information and standardized the way reports were made
available to the public electronically. Additionally, the
legislation created a standard for digitization and
archival of state reports. A consequence of the bill
increased the amount of reports for archiving needs from
four to five. The need was discovered when performing
research for the bill. He summarized that the bill
digitized state reports, saved the state money, and
standardized the means of digital access to the
information.
2:35:17 PM
Co-Chair Neuman asked about people that do not have access
to the internet. He wondered how they will have access to
state reports. Representative Kreiss-Tompkins responded
that, relatively nothing is really changing for people that
live in rural areas or lacked internet access. The state
was not automatically mailing copies of reports to people
in rural areas without internet, access to public radio, or
newspapers. He elaborated that HB 68 entitled anyone who
wanted a copy of a report to contact the state library
system and request copies. He offered that the bill created
parallel paths for any individual who wanted state reports;
one was electronic and the other supplied hard copies
through the mail. He thought that the language in the bill
that allowed for the supply of hard copies was enhanced and
"iron-clad" going beyond existing law.
Co-Chair Neuman wondered how people would know if the
information is available to them. Representative Kreiss-
Tompkins responded that currently the isolated individual
was in the same situation without HB 68. The person could
call or write the state library and request a report. He
claimed that current statute did not specify that the
person could request copies from the state library system.
He did not know how any bill could solve the problem of
making the public aware of the existence of state reports.
He believed that the legislation protected and enhanced the
access to public information if people wanted it and did
not inhibit access to state reports in any way. He
suggested that the information regarding citizens' access
to public information could be incorporated into school
civics curriculum. He would like to make more Alaskans
aware of their right to public information, but HB 68 did
not address the issue.
Co-Chair Thompson thought that the bill would make state
reports more accessible to people living more remotely and
desired the information. Representative Kreiss-Tompkins
agreed.
2:40:12 PM
Vice-Chair Saddler appreciated Representative Kreiss-
Tompkins accepting his amendment. He asked what he based
the $500 thousand in savings on since the amount was not
reflected in the fiscal note (FN 1 (Various)).
Representative Kreiss-Tompkins responded that the actual
savings were indeterminate but would be a "negative
number." He shared that the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) provided the $570 thousand as a total amount for the
state's aggregate printing costs. The legislation allowed a
commissioner or division director to determine whether a
report was so important that it should be both printed and
digitized. Therefore, some printing costs were still
applicable. In addition, he exemplified pamphlets and
brochures from the Department of Fish and Game (DFG) and
Division of Motor Vehicles (DMV) as information that
warranted hard copies.
Representative Munoz related that often the cost of
printing several copies of publications were close to the
cost of printing "hundreds of copies." She asked whether
the reports would be copied as published reports or merely
Xeroxed copies. Representative Kreiss-Tompkins responded
that the bill contained a provision that required the
reports to be produced in-house and not published as glossy
publications designed by commercial graphic designers. He
remarked that the savings created by the in-house
requirement was not calculated in the fiscal note and would
further enhance the savings. The reports would no longer be
published in an elaborate format and would be able to be
printed as a PDF. He deferred to the state library system
for a more definitive answer.
Representative Munoz wanted to put on the record that the
intent of the bill was to save costs and ease simplicity of
printing in order to produce the savings. Representative
Kreiss-Tompkins agreed with her statement.
2:45:14 PM
Representative Kawasaki appreciated the bill. He referred
to a Legislative Research report listing the state agency
reports required by statute. He asked whether the bill
would supersede the current statute that required
legislators to receive printed copies of mandated reports.
Representative Kreiss-Tompkins responded in the
affirmative. He explained that some agencies had already
decided to send its mandated reports to legislators via an
electronic link by email. He understood that statutorily
mandated reports would all be disseminated electronically
to legislators with passage of the bill. He qualified that
the reports would be sent electronically unless a
commissioner or division director determined that a "high
and public" need existed for hard copies of the report. He
noted that a division director included a lieutenant
governor, governor, and the legislative branch. In the case
the legislature or governor's office produced an important
publication deemed worthy of printing the appropriate
entity could produce a hard copy of its report.
Representative Kawasaki lifted a basket of reports that he
had received within the past couple of days. He voiced that
he also received a large quantity of emails each day. He
expressed concern that he would "lose" report notices
hiding in his email. He did not want to receive all of the
mandated reports; only certain reports as hard copies. He
wondered if there was a way legislators could opt out of
receiving paper reports. Representative Kreiss-Tompkins
responded in the negative. He explained that agencies did
not have a mechanism to send out reports in that manner. He
understood Representative Kawasaki's email issue.
2:51:19 PM
Co-Chair Thompson referred to page 3, line 20. He read from
the page:
…electronic posting on the Alaska Online Public Notice
System (AS 44.62.175) fulfills any obligation in state
law to publish, prepare, or present a report, and
electronic distribution fulfills any obligation in
state law to submit a report.
Co-Chair Thompson OPENED public testimony.
Co-Chair Thompson CLOSED public testimony.
Co-Chair Neuman MOVED to REPORT CSHB 68(FIN) out of
committee with individual recommendations and the
accompanying fiscal note.
There being NO OBJECTION, CSHB 68(FIN) was REPORTED out of
committee with a "do pass" recommendation and with one
previously published zero fiscal note: FN1 (GOV).
2:53:38 PM
AT EASE
2:56:35 PM
RECONVEYNED