Legislature(2011 - 2012)CAPITOL 106
01/19/2012 08:00 AM House STATE AFFAIRS
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB182 | |
| HB216 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | HB 182 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 216 | TELECONFERENCED | |
HB 216-REGULATIONS: INFORMATIVE SUMMARY/BILLS
9:18:57 AM
CHAIR LYNN announced that the last order of business was HOUSE
BILL NO. 216, "An Act relating to deadlines in bills directing
the adoption of regulations and to the informative summary
required for the proposed adoption, amendment, or repeal of a
regulation."
9:19:09 AM
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON, as sponsor, offered a review of HB
216, which the committee previously heard on 4/12/11. In
response to the chair, she said attached to HB 216 is an
undetermined fiscal note. She said the bill would do two
things: direct the legislature to set a time by which agencies
must put regulations in place, and require understandable
explanations of new or amended regulations. Representative P.
Wilson said those two changes would help the legislature and the
public to know what is going to happen and to have time to
respond. She said the descriptive summaries provided by
agencies are not meant to be lengthy or legally binding, and an
amendment would take care of that concern. She posited that
although the bottom line cost is yet unknown, the proposed
legislation is still worthwhile.
9:25:36 AM
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON said the Office of the Attorney General
recommended an amendment to exempt boards and commissions from
the strict time limit, because they typically meet only once or
twice a year, and an amendment that would protect agencies from
being sued if they published summaries deemed inadequate by a
citizen. She said another issue to consider is the cost to some
agencies, which are required to pay by the line for summaries in
the newspaper.
9:26:53 AM
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON moved to adopt Amendment 1, which read
as follows [original punctuation provided]:
Page 2, lines 4 - 5:
Delete "include a summary of the existing
regulation as well as a summary of the change proposed
by the amendment or repeal"
Insert "also describe how the amendment or repeal
will change the existing regulation"
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER objected for the purpose of discussion.
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON reiterated that Amendment 1 was
recommended by the Office of the Attorney General.
9:28:25 AM
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER removed his objection. There being no
further objection, Amendment 1 was adopted.
9:28:32 AM
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON moved to adopt Amendment 2, which read
as follows:
Page 2, line 7, following "understand":
Insert "without following Internet links to the
Alaska Administrative Code"
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER objected for the purpose of discussion.
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON spoke to the amendment. She offered
her understanding that Amendment 2 addresses a concern that
Representative Seaton had once had.
9:29:40 AM
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER removed his objection. There being no
further objection, Amendment 2 was adopted.
9:29:53 AM
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON moved to adopt Conceptual Amendment 3,
to exempt boards and commissions from the strict time limit.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON questioned the need for Conceptual
Amendment 3, because he offered his understanding that the time
frames would be set on a case by case basis.
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON said Conceptual Amendment 3 was
requested by the Office of the Attorney General, but she added
that she can see Representative Seaton's point. She ventured it
would be up to the committee to decide.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON said he objects to the exemption, because
he thinks the legislature will make the consideration as to what
is a reasonable time frame.
9:33:28 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG noted that three House State Affairs
Standing Committee members are on the House Judiciary Standing
Committee, and he suggested that the issue can be addressed
there.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON said that would be fine, but said he would
like to hear from someone from the Department of Law, if
possible.
9:34:22 AM
STEVE WEAVER, Assistant Attorney General (AG), Legislation &
Regulations Section, Civil Division (Juneau), explained that the
thought behind the boards and commissions exemption was to
address situations where certain boards that meet infrequently
might find themselves with insufficient time to adopt
regulations in the time frame suggested by the legislature. He
said beyond that the department does not really have a position
on the proposed legislation. He related that if the committee
would like to consider Representative Seaton's point or another
direction, the department is willing to work with the bill
sponsor. In response to a question from Representative Keller,
Mr. Weaver said in some cases it might not be difficult for DOL,
the agencies, and the legislature to ascertain the amount of
time it will take to adopt regulations; however, sometimes the
amount of time may vary, for example, if there is a
comprehensive bill involving more interaction between the
legislature, the agencies, and DOL.
9:38:26 AM
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON said she will work with DOL.
9:41:19 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG directed attention to the word "must",
on page 1, line 7, and he questioned whether it would be
problematic if each time the legislature passes a bill "they"
have to figure out how long it will take to generate the
regulations. He then mentioned that there are statutes that
address the issue of fiscal notes - not only regarding how much
money is needed to implement the bill, but also how the bill
will be implemented by the agency - and he questioned whether
there should be a conforming amendment to the fiscal note
statute that would require the agency submitting the fiscal note
to recommend how much time it will need to come up with the
regulation. He said he thinks that would help provide the
evidentiary basis and the record for the legislature.
9:43:54 AM
REPRESENTATIVE PETERSEN noted that many laws passed have
effective dates in them, and he asked if, under HB 216, the
legislature would have to assign regulation deadline dates.
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON replied that she prefers the idea to
have the specification made in the fiscal note, because it would
be an expectation rather than a law.
MR. WEAVER, in response to Representative Petersen, said all
regulations originate through the agencies.
9:45:33 AM
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON withdrew Conceptual Amendment 3.
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON moved to adopt Conceptual Amendment 4,
to insert the following language where appropriate [original
punctuation provided]:
"an action may not be brought for failure of the
notice to comply with requirements of this paragraph
relating to the description in or the clarity and
readability of the summary;"
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER objected for the purpose of discussion.
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON said the language of Conceptual
Amendment 4 was suggested by DOL. She described the language as
a disclaimer.
9:48:10 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG objected to Conceptual Amendment 4. He
said there were a series of cases relating to the attorney
general's summaries of initiatives. He said in some cases the
courts have struck those down as inaccurate. He said, "This
would provide a blanket immunity in all those cases." He
emphasized that this issue should be considered by the House
Judiciary Standing Committee, and he requested that
Representative P. Wilson withdraw Conceptual Amendment 4.
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON withdrew Conceptual Amendment 4.
9:49:09 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG expressed concern regarding language on
page 2, lines 3-7, which read as follows:
if the proposed agency action is to amend or repeal an
existing regulation, the informative summary must
include a summary of the existing regulation as well
as a summary of the change proposed by the amendment
or repeal; the informative summary shall be written in
clear, easily readable language that a person without
a legal background is able to understand;
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG suggested that an amendment may be
necessary to include regulation that is adopted in response to
legislation, as well as just changing regulation.
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON pointed out that the adopted Amendment
1 changed that language, but noted that the word "if" is still
in there.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG responded that he thinks "we should
include the other possibility in there."
9:51:07 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON said one of the largest problems
legislators face in receiving e-mail notices of bills is that
the change effected by the bill is not made clear. He said he
would like the bill to require a notice that clearly outlines
the change being made through the legislation.
CHAIR LYNN asked the bill sponsor if that is acceptable to her.
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON responded yes.
9:53:03 AM
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER opined that HB 216 is a good bill. He
said as former chair of the regulation review committee, he
appreciates the time it takes to get to the crux of legislation.
He expressed his willingness to work with the bill sponsor to
improve the proposed legislation. He said agencies have been
improving their notification of regulations, but the legislature
really needs to "get on the stick and pay attention."
9:54:11 AM
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER moved to report HB 216, as amended, out of
committee with individual recommendations and the accompanying
fiscal notes. There being no objection, CSHB 216(STA) was
reported out of the House State Affairs Standing Committee.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|