Legislature(1999 - 2000)
04/14/2000 02:20 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 FINANCE COMMITTEE
April 14, 2000
2:20 P.M.
TAPE HFC 00 - 119, Side 1.
TAPE HFC 00 - 119, Side 2.
TAPE HFC 00 - 120, Side 1.
TAPE HFC 00 - 120, Side 2.
CALL TO ORDER
Co-Chair Therriault called the House Finance Committee
meeting to order at 2:20 P.M.
PRESENT
Co-Chair Therriault Representative Foster
Co-Chair Mulder Representative Grussendorf
Representative Austerman Representative Moses
Representative Bunde Representative Phillips
Representative J. Davies Representative Williams
Representative G. Davis
ALSO PRESENT
Bruce Johnson, Deputy Commissioner, Department of Education
and Early Development; Robert Sewell, Juneau; Senator Dave
Donley; Hans Neidig, Staff, Senator Dave Donley;
Representative Mary Kaspner; Pamela LaBolle, President,
Alaska State Chamber of Commerce, Juneau; Robert Sewell,
Self, Juneau.
TESTFIED VIA TELECONFERENCE
Janice Adair, Director, Division of Environmental Health,
Department of Environmental Conservation; Aron Standley,
Student, Anchorage; Jo Garrett, Teacher, Anchorage; Yinshi
Lerman, Student, Anchorage; Milly Josephson, Student,
Anchorage; Chase Swalling, Student, Anchorage; Alex Richert,
Student, Anchorage; Jenny Wooley, Student, Anchorage; Justin
Birchell, Student, Anchorage; Jean Kollantai, Parent,
Anchorage; Berney Richert, Student, Anchorage; Dave Rose,
Parent/Teacher, Mat-Su; Dewayne Joehanks, Program
Coordinator, Wasilla; Donna Jordan, Parent, Wasilla; Louise
Parish, Parent, Valdez; Marc Grober, Attorney, Anchorage;
Jo Garrett, Anchorage.
SUMMARY
HB 58 An Act relating to certain audits regarding oil
and gas royalty and net profits and to audits
regarding costs relating to exploration incentive
credits and oil and gas exploration licenses; and
providing for an effective date.
CS HB 58 (FIN) was reported out of Committee with
a "no recommendation" and fiscal notes by
Department of Natural Resources and Department of
Revenue dated 3/8/00.
HB 301 An Act relating to the education of exceptional
children; and providing for an effective date.
HB 301 was HEARD and HELD in Committee for further
consideration.
SB 24 An Act relating to the adoption, amendment,
repeal, legislative review, and judicial review of
regulations; and amending Rule 202, Alaska Rules
of Appellate Procedure.
SB 24 was HEARD and HELD in Committee for further
consideration.
HOUSE BILL NO. 58
An Act relating to certain audits regarding oil and gas
royalty and net profits and to audits regarding costs
relating to exploration incentive credits and oil and
gas exploration licenses; and providing for an
effective date.
Co-Chair Therriault noted that the Department had requested
to withdraw Amendment #2, which was a concern addressed in
another bill. He explained how funding would be addressed
within the fiscal notes.
Representative Foster MOVED to report CS HB 58 (FIN) out of
Committee with individual recommendations and with the
accompanying fiscal notes. There being NO OBJECTION, it was
so ordered.
CS HB 58 (FIN) was reported out of Committee with a "no
recommendation" and with fiscal notes by Department of
Natural Resources and Department of Revenue dated 3/8/00.
HOUSE BILL NO. 301
An Act relating to the education of exceptional
children; and providing for an effective date.
BRUCE JOHNSON, DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
AND EARLY DEVELOPMENT, explained that the purpose of the
legislation was to update State special education statutes
to conform with federal law in the Individuals with
Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) of 1997. The bill would
remove unnecessary detail from State statute, thus removing
conflicts and inconsistencies with State and federal law.
He noted that Alaska stands to lose $13 million federal
funding dollars if we fail to update the statutes.
Mr. Johnson itemized the State Statutes Proposed for Repeal:
14.30.191 Educational evaluation and placement:
The current State statute is inconsistent and
incomplete with regard to evaluation and placement of
students with disabilities. Federal statute on
education evaluation and placement is comprehensive,
and now includes parents in the process of determining
their child's eligibility and evaluation needs. The
State will rely on federal law.
14.30.272 Procedural safeguards:
The current State statute does not include all federal
procedural safeguards (parents' and students' rights
and protections including mediation, complaint
investigation or due process hearings) for students
with disabilities. The State will rely on federal law.
14.30.274 Identification of exceptional children:
Current State law does not hold statewide
correspondence programs fully accountable for
identifying enrolled children with disabilities (child
find). The State will rely on federal law.
14.30.278 Individualized education program:
Parents, students and regular education teachers are
now essential members of the Individual Education Plan
(IEP) teams according to federal law. The State will
rely on federal law.
In response to Vice Chair Bunde, Mr. Johnson explained that
the State anticipates receiving $14.3 million federal
dollars to better serve children with disabilities.
Co-Chair Therriault questioned if the funds would really be
jeopardized if the legislation were not passed. Mr. Johnson
replied that the federal government has responded that their
intent is that no waivers will be issued. The State is in an
overall correction period with the federal government at
this time.
Vice Chair Bunde inquired regarding the no waiver time line.
Mr. Johnson reiterated that the State has been told that
there are no waivers. Vice Chair Bunde asked if it was
"imperative" that the bill pass. Mr. Johnson explained that
the Department wants to move forward and create the
necessary regulations. The federal government has not
indicated a time line.
Mr. Johnson acknowledged the voiced concern. He noted that
the original bill required gifted and talented (GT) services
to be offered at the local level. It was amended in the
House Hess Committee to cover five areas of children with
disabilities. He emphasized that there are no federal
requirements that GT children are served. That is a local
option for each state. He added that there is $13 thousand
dollars to help with the GT program. What these parents are
requesting is that they continue to have the same rights and
safeguards as children with disabilities.
Vice Chair Bunde inquired if it would be a non-funded
mandate from the State to the local districts. Mr. Johnson
advised that SB 36 provided an add on of 20%, and
specifically identified GT students would be a portion of
that 20%. He illustrated the use of that the 20%:
? Vocational education
? Bilingual education
? Special education
Vice Chair Bunde inquired if the Department had taken a
position on the amendment making this a local option. Mr.
Johnson replied that the Department believes that should be
a local responsibility and does not have the fiscal ability
to provide such services to the gifted and talented
population.
Co-Chair Therriault interjected that local districts should
be left with that responsibility. Mr. Johnson responded
that with broad guidelines that could occur. Co-Chair
Therriault asked what action would be required of the local
district. Mr. Johnson explained that each school district
would offer services and they would have an identification
procedure established to determine eligibility. If a
student was eligible, then there should be individual
learning plans which would involve the parent meeting with
the local school district to determine how best to serve the
needs of the child. Additionally, a review process will be
established to address complaints.
Co-Chair Therriault inquired if funding would be used only
for services for the disabled children. Mr. Johnson advised
that would be determined by the local school district.
ARON STANDLEY, (TESTIFIED VIA TELECONFERENCE), STUDENT,
ANCHORAGE, testified in support of a mandatory gifted and
talented program.
JO GARRETT, (TESTIFIED VIA TELECONFERENCE), TEACHER,
ANCHORAGE, commented that she was a teacher for the gifted
and talented program in Anchorage. She believed that such
programs would be adversely affected by the proposed
legislation. Ms. Garrett voiced strong support for equal
funding for gifted and talented and disabled students. She
stressed that other educators throughout the State are
strongly against this bill and that the program would cause
great harm. She enumerated that such a program will cause
the gifted students to give a lot up. She urged that the
State continue to mandate programs for the gifted students.
Vice Chair Bunde pointed out that by not passing the
legislation, the State would jeopardize loosing $14 million
dollars in federal funding. He asked if these parents were
willing to take that chance. Ms. Garrett believed that was
a threat not supported with factual information.
Vice Chair Bunde inquired which child could lead the most
successful life, the gifted or the disabled. Ms. Garrett
replied that without special education, the danger is as
great for one as it is for the other.
YINSHI LEMAN, (TESTIFIED VIA TELECONFERENCE), STUDENT,
ANCHORAGE, spoke in opposition to the proposed legislation.
She noted that the teachers certified in the gifted and
talented programs are capable of creating a program to meet
each student's needs. The gifted and talented students in a
regular class will have an underachievement status.
MILLY JOSEPHSON, (TESTIFIED VIA TELECONFERENCE), STUDENT,
ANCHORAGE, noted that all students that receive other
programs would be affected by passage of the proposed
legislation. She listed all the various programs which
would be affected by the bill and urged members to vote
against the proposed legislation.
CHASE SWALLING, (TESTIFIED VIA TELECONFERENCE), STUDENT,
ANCHORAGE, testified in opposition to the legislation. He
stated that passage of the legislation would have a negative
effect on gifted students in our current school system.
ALEX RICHERT, (TESTIFIED VIA TELECONFERENCE), STUDENT,
ANCHORAGE, commented that the legislation was disturbing,
pointing out that funding for the Anchorage school system
had also been cut. All those cuts mean less quality
education for hundreds of students. Mr. Richert urged
further funding for the gifted and talented programs
throughout the State.
JENNY WOLLEY, (TESTIFIED VIA TELECONFERENCE), STUDENT,
ANCHORAGE, testified in opposition to the proposed
legislation. She noted the importance of the current system
and stressed how important the "safe-guards" to that program
are. She spoke to the inter-relatedness of the program and
the transportation system. She requested continued
consideration to the concerns voiced at the meeting.
JUSTIN BIRCHELL, (TESTIFIED VIA TELECONFERENCE), STUDENT,
ANCHORAGE, spoke to the "special" part of special education.
He noted that the gifted children are just as special as the
handicapped students. He urged members to reconsider the
legislation as it would be damaging to a certain class of
student. Mr. Birchell pointed out that the gifted and
talented programs offer more challenges to the gifted
children which is essential to capture their attention and
"keep them on track".
JEAN KOLLANTAI, (TESTIFIED VIA TELECONFERENCE), PARENT,
ANCHORAGE, voiced concern that these two groups of students
were being "pitted" against one another. She emphasized
that more time is needed to work on an "all inclusive" bill.
Ms. Kollantai advised that in order to comply with federal
law, there needs to be an adequate audit trail. She urged
that the Committee consider working cooperatively with one
another and noted that the gifted and talented program is a
requirement for the highly motivated students. In a regular
classroom environment, these students are disabled. Ms.
Kollantai noted that very few teachers have training in
administering gifted services. Research proves that gifted
students whose needs are not met, become under achievers and
often times will drop out of school.
Co-Chair Therriault asked if there was a distinction made
between middle and high school age students. Ms. Kollantai
replied that students can continue in the program up into
high school. However, she emphasized that it is the younger
children who are at risk; in high school there are more
class choices.
(TAPE CHANGE, HFC 00 - 119, Side 2).
Vice Chair Bunde voiced concern that pulling out the gifted
students in the classrooms deprives the regular classroom of
leadership. He suggested the need for inclusion.
Ms. Kollantai explained that the children are not removed
from the other children in the school and that makes the
program good as they continue to be a part of the
curriculum.
BERNEY RICHERT, (TESTIFIED VIA TELECONFERENCE), STUDENT,
ANCHORAGE, spoke in support of the gifted program. He
voiced concern with the proposed legislation as the bill
would eliminate the guarantee that exceptional children have
a good education.
DAVID ROSE, (TESTIFIED VIA TELECONFERENCE), PARENT/TEACHER,
MAT-SU, spoke in support for continued funding for the
gifted and talented program that currently exists in the
school system. He added that there should be support to
include further funding for the gifted and talented students
in the legislation. As the bill is currently written, Mr.
Rose noted he opposed it. He pointed out that a combination
of both programs would provide a safeguard and would save
money. He noted that without direction from the
Legislature, the parents of the gifted and talented will
loose something that is extremely valuable.
Mr. Rose noted that the Legislature sought a benefit by
offering a program through the University of Alaska to the
gifted and talented top 10% graduating students to stay in
State by offering free tuition at all University of Alaska
campuses. That program cost millions of dollars. He
encouraged that those students not be discouraged from being
a part of the educational program by pulling the funding.
He urged members to find a way to include both gifted and
talented students and avoid any federal sanction costs. He
also recommended providing the structure to continue
services to these deserving students.
Co-Chair Therriault stated that passage of the proposed bill
does not fit into the budgetary scheme while noting that
those funds would continue to float through to the local
districts.
Co-Chair Therriault spoke to how conservative the structure
was in the Mat-Su area. He asked if this were a local
issue, would the school district follow through with the
program. Mr. Rose acknowledged that he was one of the
conservative Republican's living in the Mat-Su area. He
noted that the people in Mat-Su would not hesitate to cut
further and that his school district had been reduced by
25%. He emphasized that each year they cut. Mr. Rose noted
that the gifted and talented program in Mat-Su does not
include a "special school with special programs" and would
not be a major expense item.
Vice Chair Bunde voiced concern with the unintended
consequences. He added that the local school board is the
"connector". Mr. Rose interjected that through the
democratic process, the school board has been molded to be
sensitive to the needs of the students. However, that
process is slow. At this time, the State is in charge of
the money. He acknowledged that he usually did not support
unfunded mandates.
Co-Chair Therriault responded that there would be funding
with "no mandate". The money would flow and the decision
will be made at the local level.
Representative J. Davies stated that the rewrite of the
foundation formula provided for a 20% addition, which was
intended to cover in part the gifted and talented program.
He noted that the amendment would provide a mandate for that
funding.
Mr. Rose noted that he supported the amendment. He
recognized the situation and supported the work of the
Legislature.
DEWAYNE JOEHANKS, (TESTIFIED VIA TELECONFERENCE), SCHOOL
PROGRAM COORDINATOR, WASILLA, commented that these kids are
at "danger" given the proposed legislation. He noted that
there had been talk about the co-mingling these funds. He
pointed out that he had students with multiple disabilities,
while at the same time, and were gifted and talented
students.
DONNA JORDAN, (TESTIFIED VIA TELECONFERENCE), PARENT,
WASILLA, spoke as a parent of a gifted child in the present
school system. She agreed that child is different from the
other children in her class. She noted that her gifted
child was as disabled as her autistic child. She
acknowledged that the proposed legislation would pit these
children against one another. Ms. Jordan stressed that the
gifted children do not learn without proper teaching
ability. Ms. Jordan urged continued consideration of the
gifted program for the sake of all children's full
potential.
LOUISE PARISH, (TESTIFIED VIA TELECONFERENCE), PARENT,
VALDEZ, proposed that the bill be postponed for a year in
order to provide for more in depth consideration. She urged
that this bill be "killed" in Committee.
MARC GROBER, (TESTIFIED VIA TELECONFERENCE), ATTORNEY,
ANCHORAGE, noted his faxed testimony included in member's
packets. [Copy on File]. He emphasized that the bill is a
very defective bill. The bill as written does not address
the purposes for which it was intended. That purpose was
for compliance with the 1997 IDEA amendment. He reiterated
that it is bad legislation.
(TAPE CHANGE, HFC 00 - 120, Side 1).
Mr. Grober emphasized that research has demonstrated that
gifted children that do not have special programs are more
likely to become a danger to themselves or to society.
Mr. Grober noted that they had asked the Department of
Education federal delegation if there would be previously
referenced action. He emphasized that the U.S. Secretary of
that Department had no intent to cut funding. The intent of
IDEA is not to punish states who are attempting to do their
best for these children. Instead, they have awarded states
for adopting local policy that protect the children.
In 1990, the Secretary of the Congress made it clear that
IDEA was intended to encourage states to adopt local policy
that provide certain protection with certain minimal
benefits. Mr. Grober emphasized that there is no reason why
Alaska can not continue to offer the same benefits to the
gifted children as well as to the disabled children. He
maintained that such action would be unlawful and pointed
out that the Department of Education and Early Development
had "sat" on the issue for three years. He urged that this
legislation be "held".
JO GARRETT, (TESTIFIED VIA TELECONFERENCE), ANCHORAGE,
testified in opposition to the legislation. She pointed out
that gifted children are at risk when they are not
challenged and that programs need to be appropriate. She
emphasized that their needs cannot be met in the classroom
and recounted experiences in other states. The bottom line
is "dollars". Ms. Garrett stressed that highly creative
children would be the first to loose services. She
recommended an audit trail. Ms. Garrett felt that the
legislation should be killed.
ROBERT SEWELL, SELF, DOUGLAS, testified in opposition to the
legislation. He noted that 30 years ago, the Legislature
showed the wisdom and courage to give legal protection to
students with unusual needs. Children with extreme and or
unusual intelligence were included in that group. He
compared the lack of current services to a 10th grader that
is told they must spend a year in 4th grade. He maintained
that gifted children are under-served.
Mr. Sewell advised that the "fox would be watching the hen
house" if the local school districts were given
responsibility for the program. A yearly report is not
enough. Mr. Sewell expressed concern with what is missing
from the current statute. He disagreed that funds would be
lost if the legislation were not passed this year and
pointed out that a waiver could be sought if federal money
is at risk. He maintained that if there were a problem with
commingling of funds, it could turn into a serious
accounting problem. He added that there must be minimum
safe guards.
Mr. Sewell recommended that the Legislature take the time to
insure that procedural safeguards are retained. He added
that if federal money is at risk, a waiver should be sought
to provide a time of reconsideration. If the monies are at
risk, it is because funding for gifted and talented services
was previously removed from a categorical arrangement and
placed into a single pot. Additionally, he noted that the
federal government spends 1000 times as much on services for
traditional speculation education as it does on gifted and
talented services.
Mr. Sewell spoke in support of the amendment to Section 9,
included in member's packets.
Representative G. Davis referenced testimony regarding due
process and safeguards. He asked if it was a civil right to
be provided such services. Mr. Sewell replied that is not a
federally mandated issue. He noted that his concern is to
"do the right thing" and guarantee that there is a legal
structure in place. Without the legal safeguards, it would
leave the school district and parents with no where else to
go to bring the issue to fairness. In such circumstances,
whatever there is for these services will dissolve.
Vice Chair Bunde questioned the suggestion that local school
boards have an inability to address these circumstances and
the need for legal regress to attack them. Mr. Sewell
confessed that services would be greatly reduced as a result
of the many pressures placed on the local education
agencies. If the concern was only that the local agency had
the final authority, then the entire IDEA structure would be
balanced. However, there is an issue of accountability. He
noted that educators work as much as they can. Mr. Sewell
acknowledged that his concern was that if the local
safeguards are removed for the high achievers, things will
get worse. Many children will be skipped without a
statewide system in place. He proposed that Alaska should
not break what is marginally working.
Vice Chair Bunde pointed out that 1/3 of all students are
classified as gifted. Mr. Sewell corrected that the
combined total of disabled and gifted is 1/3 of the student
population. Mr. Sewell guessed that the total percentage of
exceptional students would rest between 2% - 5% of all
enrolled students.
Co-Chair Therriault referenced the bill which addresses
parent's rights services. Mr. Johnson stated that Page 3,
Line 4, had been debated significantly in previous
Committees and the issue being if the parent's have the
right to refuse special education services. He noted that
the Department's interpretation of the bill is that they do
have the right to refuse that their child go through the
testing to qualify. Mr. Johnson added that they have veto
rights once the initial program is established. Once a
child is identified and placed in the special education
program, then the district must provide an appropriate
public education.
In response to Representative Bunde, Mr. Johnson noted that
the conversation has been around the Department's
commingling of funds for those with disabilities and those
in the gifted and talented area. The federal government has
clarified that money can not be commingled and that the
practice in no longer handled that way.
Mr. Johnson indicated that the general fund appropriation
for special education for Department's use is $13 thousand
dollars. That is the extent of the money available except
for funding received from the federal government. This
year, that amount is in excess of $13 million dollars.
Discussion followed between Mr. Johnson and Vice Chair Bunde
regarding how the federal money would be spent.
Representative J. Davies inquired how much the Department
had spent of the federal money for training and other things
related to the due process hearing officers. Mr. Johnson
replied that it varies between $250-$400 thousand dollars a
year. That amount does not include the four professionals
employed at the Department. Representative J. Davies
advised that the due process portion can use federal funds
only for the disabled component. An additional fiscal note
would be needed for the gifted and talented portion.
Co-Chair Therriault noted that the public hearing process
would be closed. He commented that the bill would be held
in Committee.
HB 301 was HELD in Committee for further consideration.
HOUSE CS FOR CS FOR SENATE BILL NO. 24(JUD)
An Act relating to regulations; and providing for an
effective date.
HANS NEIDIG, STAFF, SENATOR DAVE DONLEY, stated that SB 24
would reform how administrative regulations are adopted by
the Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) by
creating a pilot program that places reasonable new limits
on the power of the Department to impose new regulations on
Alaskans.
Mr. Neidig noted that the legislation pertains only to the
Department of Environmental Conservation. The original
scope of the bill has been reduced dramatically in an effort
to single out a department where the measures required in SB
24 could serve as a pilot program. Mr. Neidig added that SB
24 is written in such a way so as to make it easy to broaden
its applicability to other departments in the future.
Mr. Neidig advised that SB 24 increases opportunities for
public notice and comment regarding adoption of DEC
regulations when there is a substantial change to previously
proposed regulations. Also, SB 24 requires that DEC, within
90 days after the effective date of the statute or
amendment, publish notice on their intent to promulgate
regulations for said statute or amendments. It also sets a
2-year time limit for the adoption of regulations.
Regulations adopted by State agencies have the effect of law
similar to statutes adopted by the Legislature. The
regulation adoption process, however, has very few of the
safeguards and opportunities for public input that the
legislative process has. Unlike statutes which require a
series of public hearings in the State House and Senate,
regulations can be adopted with a single notice and hearing
which may or may not even reflect the actual content of the
final version of the regulation.
Mr. Neidig stated that once adopted, State regulations could
only be amended by the agency that adopted them or by the
adoption of a statute that somehow directly conflicts with
the regulation. That makes State regulations in Alaska very
hard to amend or appeal once in place. Entrenched State
bureaucrats, with little incentive to be responsive to the
public, often have more real control over public policy
through regulations than elected State officials. SB 24
begins to make State regulators more accountable to the
public and to elected officials by placing reasonable and
needed restraints on the ever-increasing number of State
regulations Alaskans live with.
Co-Chair Therriault pointed out that Section 4 was the most
important portion of the bill. He asked if the sponsor had
requested Sections 1-3. Mr. Neidig replied, that language
had been added in the House Judiciary Committee at the
request of Senator Leman in order to streamline the current
system. Mr. Neidig advised that Section "D" was the most
contentious section and the portion that Senator Donley
feels the most strongly about. It would require a State
agency to go back out to public notice if during the second
notice, substantial changes were made to the regulation.
The current standard is to determine whether or not
substantial subject changes were made. There is a new
standard being created indicating that if there is change
the substance of a regulation, then they must return to
public notice. The interpretation of notice is broad. Mr.
Neidig reiterated that is where the disagreement lies and
that information must be published.
Co-Chair Therriault understood that the Department might not
want to be removed from the loop. Representative Phillips
voiced concern that if the agency makes changes and the
public is noticed, there would be no recourse or penalty.
Mr. Neidig replied that in previous versions of the bill,
there was recourse; however, and through all the testimony
taken, many of those issues have been deleted in an attempt
to establish a reasonable pilot program.
Representative J. Davies asked what was broken in the
current system. Mr. Neidig stated that public testimony
and/or opportunity has not been provided to the public
regarding changes to regulations.
(TAPE CHANGE, HFC 00 - 120, Side 2).
Representative Phillips asked if the newspaper and publisher
industry were comfortable with the proposed language. Mr.
Neidig replied that language was one of the five sections
which had been added by the House Judiciary Committee. At
the last meeting, the last two sections were withdrawn.
There remains only one reference at this time.
PAMELA LABOLLE, PRESIDENT, ALASKA STATE CHAMBER OF COMMERCE,
JUNEAU, testified in support of the legislation. She voiced
frustration in how the bill has been protested by the
various agencies. Ms. LaBolle noted that businesses have
three complaints about the current regulation process:
? Sometimes the regulations are over-reaching or
little resemblance the original statute;
? Changes have been made during the process, which
has significantly altered what the regulations is
suppose to be about; and
? Complaints have been made regarding the excessive
amount of time to create regulations.
Originally, the bill covered several agencies. During the
last year in the Senate, it had over 20 hearings. She noted
that it has been reduced to a pilot project just for DEC
because that is the Department where the most concerns have
been voiced. Ms. LaBolle urged that what is left of the
bill should be adopted.
Co-Chair Therriault suggested that this legislation could be
classified as the "evil department" theory. Co-Chair
Therriault stated that there is a rate fee being established
and stated that what was left of the bill caused him
concern. He believed that it could be used to delay things.
Representative Phillips stated that regulatory reform has
been a concern of the Legislature for many years. She asked
the argument against leaving that language placing a penalty
on the agencies. Ms. LaBolle believed that was a "scare"
tactic. Every time there is a change, the agency threatens
to hold up projects.
JANIE ADAIR, (TESTIFIED VIA TELECONFERENCE), DIRECTOR,
DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH, DEPARTMENT OF
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION, ANCHORAGE, noted that she had
asked the Department of Law to describe the substantial
change language and requested a letter from that Department.
[Copy on File].
Ms. Adair pointed out that the sponsor of the bill had not
spoken with the Department regarding the goals of the
legislation. She agreed that the regulatory process is
frustrating. Every regulation that is adopted has to have
an authority line. The Department of Law is judicious in
looking at all the proposals.
Ms. Adair spoke to the regulation packages. Every comment
received on each proposal is read and responded to. She
stated that she has provided numerous packages in her role
with the Department. She reminded the Committee about the
Solid Waste Disposal package. The Department of Law
requires that DEC have regulations adopted within a year of
the first public notice. Ms. Adair noted concern that there
is no limit on the number of times regulations need to be
public noticed. Public notice is expensive. The Department
understands that the public notice will have to go out at
least two times.
Ms. Adair acknowledged the frustration of the process and
commented that there are other proposals to the
Administrative Procedures Act. She suggested that this is
the direction needed to be taken rather than a proposed
piece-meal project.
Representative Phillips referenced legislation, which
currently passed the House floor and that would streamline
the process. Ms. Adair explained that everything the
Department does gets posted on the web site. The published
notices are in the newspapers and statewide publications.
The best way to make people aware of regulatory proposals is
through direct mailings. Ms. Adair emphasized that there
have been no cost savings in using the Internet services.
Representative Phillips asked how many times had the
Department been faced with legislation where they did not
understand the intent. Ms. Adair replied that the intent is
usually clear.
Mr. Neidig addressed the amendments included in the packet.
He noted that Amendment #1 was an internal reference and
technical correction. [Copy on File]. Amendment #2
addresses concerns of Department of Environmental
Conservation and future case challenges. [Copy on File].
Co-Chair Therriault noted that it was his intent to make
contact with some other industries throughout the State
before further discussion.
SB 24 was HELD in Committee for further consideration.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting adjourned at 4:55 P.M.
H.F.C. 15 4/14/00 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|