Legislature(1995 - 1996)
03/28/1995 03:35 PM Senate STA
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
SSTA - 3/28/95
SB 110 ADMINISTRATIVE ADJUDICATIONS
SENATOR SHARP brings up SB 110 as the next order of business before
the Senate State Affairs Committee.
Number 043
SENATOR RANDY PHILLIPS makes a motion to adopt the State Affairs
Committee substitute for SB 110.
Number 051
SENATOR DONLEY introduces and explains a proposed amendment to SB
110 (9-GS0006\A.1, Bannister, 3/24/95). The amendment would
increase the public notice required before regulations can be
adopted. Senator Donley informs the committee that the
administration is opposed to this amendment.
Number 110
SENATOR DONLEY makes a motion to adopt Amendment #1 to SB 110.
Number 115
SENATOR LEMAN expresses concern that the amendment does not apply
to regulations necessary to meet federal requirements. We need to
fight back and not allow the federal government to over-run us.
CHAIRMAN SHARP asks Ms. Williams if she would like to testify on
the amendment.
Number 135
TERESA WILLIAMS, Assistant Attorney General, testifying from
Anchorage, thinks the amendment would increase the cost of the
regulatory process because of additional advertising and additional
board and commission meetings. She states the original intent of
SB 110 was as a cost-saving measure, while the amendment would
increase state costs. Ms. Williams also thinks the amendment would
complicate the regulatory process enough so that beneficial changes
to proposed regulations will not be made. For that reason, she
thinks it might adversely affect public input.
MS. WILLIAMS also thinks departments would not be able to adopt
regulations in a timely manner for seasonal conditions, such as a
construction season or a timber season. She asks what would happen
if a regulation is thrown out by a court. In an instance where
fees are involved, would there then be no fees?
Number 200
MS. WILLIAMS believes the power to challenge regulations will be
immense, if amendment #1 is adopted. She thinks it will lead to
more litigation. Environmental groups often use every tool in the
book to stop something.
Number 215
SENATOR RANDY PHILLIPS asks Ms. Williams if the administration will
be supporting the amendment if the issues she raised are addressed.
Number 220
MS. WILLIAMS thinks there are some good things to the amendment,
but there would have to be a fiscal note with it, and she does not
think the legislature would add the funds.
Number 232
SENATOR DONLEY asserts that the seasonal example given by Ms.
Williams as a potential problem should not be a concern, because
regulations could be adopted under the emergency regulations
process. And Ms. Williams' concern with increased litigation could
not even occur, so long as departments comply with the law. For
court cases, the court may grant relief appropriate under the
circumstances. So if a court had a problem with a regulation, they
wouldn't necessarily have to strike down the whole regulation.
Number 250
SENATOR LEMAN asks Senator Donley if, under Section 2, subsection
(c), if it would be appropriate to add language to the end of the
subsection stating, "or a portion of a regulation", or similar
language to clarify that a whole regulation need not be thrown out.
SENATOR DONLEY responds he would totally support such an amendment
to amendment #1. He suggests, on page 2, line 9, that the
amendment read, "...including the invalidation or partial
invalidation of the regulation...."
SENATOR LEMAN does not care how the amendment is made, just that
the intent be clear.
SENATOR DONLEY thinks the intent is: if there is an area of any
regulation that is not impacted by the change with which the court
is concerned, that the unaffected portion of the regulation still
remain in effect.
SENATOR LEMAN is not sure how the amendment to amendment #1 should
be worded, so he moves the conceptual amendment to amendment #1.
CHAIRMAN SHARP, hearing no objection, states the conceptual
amendment to amendment #1 has been adopted.
CHAIRMAN SHARP notes he does not see language in amendment #1
stating there must be a hearing, just language specifying
additional time for public comment.
SENATOR DONLEY responds the language specifies, "...there is a
notice and opportunity for public comment." He thinks this is the
exact language used in legislation that was worked on three years
ago. His understanding is that language would require a public
hearing procedure.
SENATOR LEMAN asks if that would be a 30 day requirement.
SENATOR DONLEY thinks it would be a 30 day.
SENATOR LEMAN asks if there would be any way to require a truncated
second public comment period. Or would a new process have to be
established?
Number 290
SENATOR DONLEY replies a new process would have to be established.
He thinks this language would just require one additional hearing.
CHAIRMAN SHARP asks if there are any more comments on amendment #1
to SB 110.
SENATOR DONLEY asks the committee to consider, to bring things into
perspective, that all the administration has to do to adopt
regulations, which are just as powerful as law, is hold one
hearing. Amendment #1 would require an additional hearing if
proposed regulations are changed after the first hearing.
Number 300
CHAIRMAN SHARP asks if there is objection to adopting amendment #1
to SB 110. Hearing no objection, the chairman states amendment #1
has been adopted.
Number 305
SENATOR RANDY PHILLIPS makes a motion to discharge SB 110 from the
Senate State Affairs Committee with individual recommendations.
CHAIRMAN SHARP, hearing no objection, orders SB 110 released from
committee with individual recommendations.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|