Legislature(2003 - 2004)
03/23/2004 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. 424
An Act relating to review of regulations under the
Administrative Procedure Act by the Legislative Affairs
Agency; and providing for an effective date.
BARBARA COTTING, STAFF, REPRESENTATIVE JIM HOLM, testified
that HB 424 requires legislative legal review of regulations
before they are finalized. Under current statute, only the
Attorney General formally reviews proposed regulations and
the review comes late in the process, when public comment
has already been closed. After the Attorney General
approves proposed regulations, they are transmitted to the
Lt. Governor's office, where they are seldom changed and the
public then becomes justifiably frustrated when they see
regulations adopted that are different from the ones in
which they commented.
Ms. Cotting stated that under HB 424, legislative attorneys
who actually draft the bills would review regulations being
promulgated from those bills. By working cooperatively with
the Attorney General's office, differences of opinion could
be worked out before the regulations were finalized. In the
event that differences could not be worked out, the
Legislature would have the opportunity for input. She added
that the overall impact to the State's economy would be
positive. Adding legislative review to the regulation
process would:
· Help eliminate conflicts,
· Create a more stable business environment, and
· Increase the public's trust in government.
Co-Chair Harris questioned the comment made by Ms. Cotting
that the Legislature does not have the constitutional legal
authority to abolish regulations. Ms. Cotting responded
that they do not by statute. Co-Chair Harris stated that
the Legislature has the authority to place regulations in
statute. He understood that the legislation would have
another group write regulations for the bills passed. Ms.
Cotting corrected, indicating that the bill would provide
for an attorney in Legislative Legal and Research Service
Division, who would review regulations by the agencies. She
pointed out that Tam Cook, the director from Legislative
Legal, had submitted a fiscal note for the scope of that
work in the amount of $98 thousand dollars, covering the
cost for one attorney position.
Ms. Cotting acknowledged that the action would be a policy
call. The legislative intent causes much to litigate. Co-
Chair Harris asked the legal ramifications of the
Legislature writing its own regulations without the input of
the Administration. He asked what would happen if the
Legislature took over that entire function.
DEBORAH BEHR, ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL, REGULATIONS
ATTORNEY, DEPARTMENT OF LAW, commented the problem with
having the Legislature providing the "nuts and bolts" of the
regulations is that the Legislature is not around for so
many months of the year. She understood why the Legislature
did not want to delegate the work to the Executive Branch,
which attempts to fill in the blanks in statute. If the
Legislature wants to write their own regulations, it is
legal and constitutional but it would mean that the
Legislature would have to do much more substantial and
detailed work for the individual statutes.
Co-Chair Harris complained that one of the issues is that
the Legislature writes legislation and then the
Administration writes regulations that affect their point of
view, which happens too often. He emphasized that was
frustrating. Then the Legislature has to pass new
legislation to make the original intent clear. Ms. Behr
pointed out that one of the goals of the proposed bill,
itemized on Page 3, Lines 8-12, was to have the assigned
attorney notify various bodies in the Legislature to review
and provide additional legislative oversight. The framework
in the bill is designed to facilitate the oversight.
Co-Chair Williams asked if she was referencing the
Legislative Regulation Review Committee. Ms. Behr responded
that the Legislative Review Committee has an active role in
the HB 424.
DAVE STANCLIFF, REGULATION REVIEW COMMITTEE, STAFF,
REPRESENTATIVE PETE KOTT, informed members that Minnesota
co-writes regulation with their Administration. That state
has fewer conflicts than experienced by Alaska. Colorado
has a Regulation Review Committee and the drafters, track
legislation and watch for when the regulations are put forth
and then highlight specific problems for the Regulation
Review Committee. That check and balance provides a
screening process to let the legislators know if there is
anything wrong. Because of the threat of the screening
process, the regulation writers are more precise in writing
regulations. The Courts have found that the legislature has
limited ability to change regulations once they are in
place. The bill provides an outline on how to build a
cooperative partnership and helps to determine if the number
of regulation concerns could be reduced.
In response to Co-Chair Harris query, Mr. Stancliff
indicated that he has been involved in the Regulatory Review
Committee, consisting of a staff of one. Co-Chair Harris
asked if it would be prudent to have the Committee consist
of an attorney as the staff person. Mr. Stancliff
acknowledged that was a possibility. Each legal realm
within the process has to develop it's own "flavor" and that
would be the choice of the Legislature whether to hire the
attorney. He pointed out that Legislative Legal Agency is a
non-partisan and credible process. In good government
reform, it is important to look at something that serves any
philosophy well over time.
Representative Foster referenced the $98 thousand dollar
fiscal note. He requested to add his name as a co-sponsor
of the bill.
Ms. Behr pointed out that hiring a professional editor costs
a lot more than the services associated with Legal Services.
Representative Stoltze stated that no matter who is in
office, there must be a 2/3 majority to repeal a resolution.
He did not know what the solution should be to address the
concerns of the proposed legislation. It is difficult to
micromanage each issue.
Representative Hawker shared Representative Stoltze's
concern with the legislation. He was troubled with the
Department of Health & Social Services fiscal note,
indicating significant costs to that Department. They are
working diligently on regulations to improve their cost
efficiencies and unnecessary delays could result in
continued expenditures.
Ms. Cotting pointed out that two of the fiscal notes are out
dated and address earlier versions of the bill. The only
note that is current is the one from the Legislative Affairs
Agency. She believed that the narrative would be changed
for the other two notes. There would be no mandated delay
with passage of the bill.
Mr. Stancliff pointed out that there are two provisions in
the bill that explicitly state that nothing that Legislative
Legal does will hold up the process in any way. It would be
a constitutional separation of powers. The bill and the
principal of it are based to tie into two other measures
that will come before the House Finance Committee. HB 242
addresses the "front-end" into the regulatory process, HB
203 deals with the center of the adjudication process and HB
424 creates the safety valve at the end of the process.
PAM LABOLLE, ALASKA STATE CHAMBER OF COMMERCE, JUNEAU,
voiced strong support for the proposed bill. With 40,000
regulations in Alaska and 93% of all regulations proposed
becoming law, it is important for business to watch exactly
how regulations are formed, enforced and reviewed to ensure
we are able to navigate the system. Senator Therriault has
introduced a three-tier package on regulatory reform to
render the system more efficient and flexible.
The three bills are:
· SB 203, Fair Hearing Bill
· SB 287, Legislative Legal Review of Proposed
Regulations, and
· SB 333, Judicial Extraction from Administrative
Review.
Currently, State agencies that write and enforce
administrative law also hear complaints against those laws.
HB 424 provides a fix for the system by separating the
administrative adjudication process from the agencies. The
bill creates a central hearing panel that gives hearing
officers a more independent and protected station from which
to deliver timely due process through fair and objective
hearings, thereby, creating an efficient and more
professional administrative hearing process. Initial start-
up costs would be recouped and significant savings would
accrue through the efficiencies. The reductions in time due
to the efficiencies would reduce costs to businesses.
Co-Chair Williams stated that HB 424 would be HELD in
Committee for further consideration.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|