Legislature(1997 - 1998)
03/03/1998 01:45 PM House FIN
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
HOUSE BILL NO. 264
"An Act providing for a negotiated regulation making
process; and providing for an effective date."
REPRESENTATIVE JEANNETTE JAMES, SPONSOR spoke in support of
the proposed committee substitute for HB 264, Work Draft 0-
LS0910\L, dated 2/25/98.
Deborah Behr, Assistant Attorney General, Department of Law
reviewed changes made by the proposed committee substitute.
? Page 3, lines 1 & 3, "An agency shall notify the public
so that interested parties can apply..."
Ms. Behr noted that this language allows flexibility to
notify the public in a manner that results in the least
cost. "Interested persons" was included to clarify that an
individual may volunteer their time, even if they are not
directly affected by the regulation. This is to allow
retired public officials, judges and others to participate.
? Page 3, lines 17 & 18, "The agency should strive to
achieve the balanced committee representation..."
Ms. Behr emphasized that the intent is to achieve balance.
It was not placed in statute because it would be difficult
to assess when balance is achieved.
? Page 5, lines 16 & 17, "Members of a negotiated
regulation making committee are responsible for their
own expenses of participation."
The prior version would have required agencies to certify
need. The subcommittee decided that each member would pay
his or her own way. Ms. Behr maintained that this provision
would result in meetings being held in metropolitan areas.
Groups will have to take donations and pay for their own
members to travel. Teleconferencing will be used.
? Page 5, lines 26 - 29, Disclosure
This would require a member to disclose gifts; grants or
other financial benefits that exceed $150 dollars and have
been accepted to finance the disclosure member's
participation on the regulation committee. Ms. Behr did not
think a member would have to disclose their salary.
? Page 7, line 17, Immunity for members of a negotiated
rules making committee and its members.
Ms. Behr noted that CSHB 264 (STA) did not provide absolute
immunity to members participating on the committee. The
proposed committee substitute provides absolute immunity.
She observed that the members would only advise on various
decisions. She emphasized that the provision would
encourage private businesspersons to participate.
? Page 7, lines 27 - 30, Members of a Negotiated Rule
Making Committee.
Ms. Behr explained that this would exempt members from the
provisions of the Executive Ethics Act. Public officers on
a negotiated rule making committee would still be under the
provisions of the Executive Ethics Act. Member's financial
contribution to the meeting would be disclosed under
previous provisions. This would indicate their position.
Criminal provisions would still apply to gross conduct, such
as accepting a bribe.
? Page 8, lines 1 - 5, Conforming amendment
Ms. Behr observed that this provision would bring back the
existing law after five years.
Representative Mulder MOVED to ADOPT Work Draft 0-LS0910\L,
dated 2/25/98. There being NO OBJECTION, it was so ordered.
Discussion pursued regarding the amendment to the Executive
Ethics Act. Ms. Behr clarified that the legislation takes
negotiated regulation making committees out of the Act. She
emphasized that they are short-term committees that are not
making final decisions. Only their travel is disclosed.
Representative Davies did not recall discussion on the
subject during the subcommittee. Representative Kelly did
recall some discussion on this matter during the
subcommittee hearing.
Representative James spoke in support of the provision.
Representative Davies expressed concern with the provision.
He noted that a person would not need to disclose close
financial associations or their employer.
Ms. Behr emphasized that the intent of the legislation is to
encourage upper level executives of private businesses.
Co-Chair Therriault observed that members do not authorize
actions. Representative Davies spoke in support of
balancing disclosure requirements to indicate a member's
general bias. Co-Chair Therriault asked if there is a
problem in the current stakeholder process mechanism.
Representative Davies MOVED to ADOPT Amendment 1 (copy on
file). Co-Chair Therriault OBJECTED for the purpose of
discussion. Amendment 1 would amend page 5, line 17 by
inserting "if they have adequate resources. However, an
agency may pay for a committee member's reasonable travel
and per diem expenses..." He observed that the amendment
would allow agencies to pay for members. Members would
still be generally responsible to pay their own way.
Ms. Behr clarified that the legislation would not allow
agencies to pay for a member's travel. She noted that if
the section were deleted the status quo would prevail. She
expressed concern with Amendment 1. She noted the
difficulty in assessing the ability to pay.
Representative Grussendorf spoke in support of allowing
agencies to pay. He observed that there might be
circumstances where an agency would want to pay someone's
way to achieve balance on the committee.
Representative Martin spoke against the amendment. He
expressed concern that it would be costly.
Representative James emphasized that it is a volunteer
system that should not be costly. She preferred that
agencies not pay for member's travel.
Representative Davis stressed that it would not be fair to
pay for some and not others.
Representative Davies observed that industries would pay for
their representation. He noted that members of the public
might not have the same ability to pay. He stressed that
the status quo allows agencies to decide. He pointed out
that it would be cheaper to pay for one person's travel then
to send several agency people to the area the person
resides.
Representative Grussendorf stressed that the ability to pay
would differ. He emphasized that the amendment would help
achieve balance.
Representative WITHDREW Amendment 1. There being NO
OBJECTION, it was so ordered.
Representative Davies MOVED to delete subsection (c) on page
5, lines 16 and 17. He observed that the amendment would
retain the status quo. There being NO OBJECTION, it was so
ordered.
Ms. Behr stated that the fiscal impact was not changed by
the proposed committee substitute.
Representative Martin MOVED to report CSHB 264 (FIN) out of
Committee with the accompanying fiscal notes. There being
NO OBJECTION, it was so ordered.
CSHB 264 (FIN) was REPORTED out of Committee with "no
recommendation" and with two fiscal impact notes, one by the
Department of Revenue and one by the Office of the Governor.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|