Legislature(1995 - 1996)
02/28/1995 08:06 AM House STA
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
HOUSE STATE AFFAIRS STANDING COMMITTEE
February 28, 1995
8:06 a.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Jeannette James, Chair
Representative Scott Ogan, Vice-Chair
Representative Joe Green
Representative Ivan
Representative Brian Porter
Representative Caren Robinson
Representative Ed Willis
MEMBERS ABSENT
Representative Scott Ogan
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
*HB 173: "An Act relating to reports by state agencies."
PASSED OUT OF COMMITTEE
*SCR 4: Naming the Poet Laureate of Alaska.
PASSED OUT OF COMMITTEE
*HJR 1: Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the State
of Alaska relating to repeal of regulations by the
legislature.
PASSED OUT OF COMMITTEE
*HB 89: "An Act making a special appropriation to the principal
of the permanent fund; and providing for an effective
date."
PASSED OUT OF COMMITTEE
*HCR 11: Designating March 1995 as Sobriety Awareness Month,
commonly referred to as "SAM."
PASSED OUT OF COMMITTEE
*HB 163: "An Act requiring an agency to provide compliance cost
estimates for proposed regulations, amendments, and
repeals of regulations under certain circumstance."
HEARD AND HELD
(* First public hearing)
WITNESS REGISTER
REPRESENTATIVE GARY DAVIS
Alaska State Legislature
State Capitol, Room 420
Juneau, AK 99801
Telephone: (907) 465-2693
POSITION STATEMENT: Sponsor of HB 173
DANITH WATTS, Budget Analyst
Office of Management and Budget
Office of the Governor
240 Main Street, Suite 202
Juneau, AK 99801
Telephone: (907) 465-4698
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 173
KRAG JOHNSEN, Intern
for Senator Loren Leman
Alaska State Legislature
State Capitol, Room 113
Juneau, AK 99801
Telephone: (907) 465-2095
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided Sponsor Statement for SCR 4
KYLE PARKER, Legislative Assistant
to Representative Gail Phillips
Alaska State Legislature
State Capitol, Room 208
Juneau, AK 99801-1182
Telephone: (907) 465-2689
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided Sponsor Statement for HJR 1
REPRESENTATIVE TERRY MARTIN
Alaska State Legislature
State Capitol, Room 502
Juneau, AK 99801
Telephone: (907) 465-3783
POSITION STATEMENT: Sponsor of HB 89
DEBORAH OSTENDORF, Legislative Secretary
to Representative Irene Nicholai
Alaska State Legislature
State Capitol, Room 501
Juneau, AK 99801
Telephone: (907) 465-4527
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided Sponsor Statement for SCR 11
ROD MOURANT, Administrative Assistant
Alaska State Legislature
State Capitol, Room 432
Juneau, AK 99801
Telephone: (907) 465-3777
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 163
ELMER LINDSTROM, Special Assistant
Office of the Commissioner
Department of Health and Social Services
350 Main Street, Room 229
PO Box 110601
Juneau, AK 99811-0601
Telephone: (907) 465-3030
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 163
PREVIOUS ACTION
BILL: HB 173
SHORT TITLE: REPORTS TO THE LEGISLATURE
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) G.DAVIS, Navarre, Toohey,
Finkelstein, Bunde, Rokeberg, Brown, James, Phillips, Kott
JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION
02/10/95 302 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
02/10/95 302 (H) STATE AFFAIRS
02/13/95 343 (H) COSPONSOR(S): TOOHEY, FINKELSTEIN,
BUNDE
02/13/95 343 (H) COSPONSOR(S): ROKEBERG, BROWN
02/15/95 396 (H) COSPONSOR(S): JAMES
02/23/95 469 (H) COSPONSOR(S): PHILLIPS
02/23/95 (H) STA AT 08:00 AM CAPITOL 102
02/23/95 (H) MINUTE(STA)
02/27/95 511 (H) COSPONSOR(S): KOTT
02/28/95 (H) STA AT 08:00 AM CAPITOL 102
BILL: SCR 4
SHORT TITLE: POET LAUREATE OF ALASKA
SPONSOR(S): SENATOR(S) LEMAN, Halford, Duncan, Zharoff, Taylor,
Green, Torgerson;
REPRESENTATIVE(S) Toohey, Navarre
JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION
01/20/95 58 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
01/20/95 58 (S) STATE AFFAIRS
01/31/95 (S) STA AT 03:30 PM BELTZ ROOM 211
02/02/95 (S) STA AT 03:30 PM BELTZ ROOM 211
02/02/95 (S) MINUTE(STA)
02/03/95 159 (S) STA RPT 4DP
02/03/95 159 (S) ZERO FISCAL NOTE (DOE)
02/07/95 (S) RLS AT 11:40 AM FAHRENKAMP ROOM 203
02/07/95 (S) MINUTE(RLS)
02/09/95 219 (S) RULES TO CALENDAR 2/9/95
02/09/95 223 (S) READ THE SECOND TIME
02/09/95 223 (S) COSPONSOR(S): HALFORD, DUNCAN,
ZHAROFF,
02/09/95 223 (S) TAYLOR, GREEN, TORGERSON
02/09/95 223 (S) PASSED Y19 N- E1
02/09/95 226 (S) TRANSMITTED TO (H)
02/10/95 290 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
02/10/95 290 (H) STATE AFFAIRS
02/10/95 322 (H) CROSS SPONSOR(S): TOOHEY, NAVARRE
02/23/95 (H) STA AT 08:00 AM CAPITOL 102
02/23/95 (H) MINUTE(STA)
02/28/95 (H) STA AT 08:00 AM CAPITOL 102
BILL: HJR 1
SHORT TITLE: REPEAL OF REGULATIONS BY LEGISLATURE
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) PHILLIPS, Rokeberg, Brice, Green
JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION
01/06/95 16 (H) PREFILE RELEASED
01/16/95 16 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
01/16/95 16 (H) STATE AFFAIRS, JUDICIARY
01/18/95 73 (H) COSPONSOR(S): GREEN
02/07/95 (H) MINUTE(ARR)
02/14/95 (H) STA AT 08:00 AM CAPITOL 519
02/14/95 (H) MINUTE(STA)
02/23/95 (H) STA AT 08:00 AM CAPITOL 102
02/23/95 (H) MINUTE(STA)
02/28/95 (H) STA AT 08:00 AM CAPITOL 102
BILL: HB 89
SHORT TITLE: APPROP: TO PERMANENT FUND PRINCIPAL
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) MARTIN, James
JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION
01/17/95 51 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
01/17/95 51 (H) STATE AFFAIRS, JUDICIARY, FINANCE
02/23/95 (H) STA AT 08:00 AM CAPITOL 102
02/23/95 (H) MINUTE(STA)
02/28/95 (H) STA AT 08:00 AM CAPITOL 102
BILL: HCR 11
SHORT TITLE: SOBRIETY AWARENESS MONTH: MARCH 1995
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) NICHOLIA, Grussendorf, Robinson,
Navarre, Elton
JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION
02/15/95 368 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
02/15/95 369 (H) STATE AFFAIRS
02/22/95 455 (H) COSPONSOR(S): ELTON
02/28/95 (H) STA AT 08:00 AM CAPITOL 102
BILL: HB 163
SHORT TITLE: COMPLIANCE COST ESTIMATES REQUIRED
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) KOTT, Toohey, Kelly, MacLean
JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION
02/08/95 272 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
02/08/95 272 (H) STA, FIN
02/22/95 456 (H) COSPONSOR(S): KELLY, MACLEAN
02/28/95 (H) STA AT 08:00 AM CAPITOL 102
ACTION NARRATIVE
TAPE 95-22 SIDE A
Number 001
The State Affairs Committee meeting was called to order at 8:06
a.m. by Chair James. Members present at the call to order were
Representatives Green, Porter, Robinson, Willis, Ivan and James.
CHAIR JEANNETTE JAMES said the record should reflect that
Representatives Ivan and Ogan were at a Finance Subcommittee
meeting for Fish and Game. They told her they would be available
when needed.
HSTA - 02/28/95
HB 173 - AN ACT RELATING TO REPORTS BY STATE AGENCIES
Number 024
REPRESENTATIVE GARY DAVIS came before the committee to present HB
173, with fiscal notes, which he passed to committee members. He
stated that it is a simple bill, and he thinks it is a better way.
Currently, every bill and every statute that comes before the
legislature says that each agency, committee, or commission, or
department, will provide a copy of their annual report to the
governor and legislature. So, that is what they do. Representative
Davis thought it would be appropriate to notify the legislature
that a report is available, which will provide a reduction in the
material that flows through a legislator's office. Currently,
state agencies are required by statute to prepare over one hundred
annual, biannual, and other reports for automatic submission to
every legislator, whether or not the legislator has a concern about
the report. HB 173 will require state agencies to notify the
legislature when reports are available. This would cut costs.
Number 118
CHAIR JAMES asked why they didn't get a negative fiscal note.
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIS said he did not know why. He stated he had a
sheet on it, and also a copy of all the reports that state agencies
need to provide. He felt there should be a negative fiscal note.
CHAIR JAMES also wondered how the copies of these reports would be
stored.
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIS visualized something like 15 or 20 copies of
the reports that they would keep available, and they can make more
as the supply is reduced. There is a considerable amount of money
put out for printing, and he feels this legislation will reduce the
cost.
CHAIR JAMES added that some reports are very professionally done,
and a certain numbers would probably have to be printed each time.
Number 198
REPRESENTATIVE JOE GREEN said there are usually two or more costs
for printing. There is a per-unit cost, which goes down as the
volume goes up. If one thousand is the breaking point, then you
save money by printing more at one time. If you guess short and
have to go back and reprint some copies, the cost will be
considerably higher.
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIS said some departments do things differently,
and costs vary. For instance, Alaska Public Offices Commission,
Department of Administration, must prepare forms and manuals of
instruction for use by persons required to make reports under the
Campaign Disclosure, Conflict of Interest and Lobbying Laws. The
completed forms are made available to the public. The cost of
printing is $12,645.
REPRESENTATATIVE CAREN ROBINSON expressed her support of HB 173,
but she suggested that, instead of the departments sending
individuals a copy of their reports, they send a list of the
available reports. Legislators could recycle by distributing
reports to libraries around their districts and communities.
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIS thought her idea was good. He said that would
not be a legal call, but rather a policy call. It would not have
to be in statute.
Number 271
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES added that reports should be put on computer
to reduce the amount of paper-packing. With the technology today,
it is ridiculous that we have all this paper. If the reports were
on computer they could be read on the screen, and, if desired,
printed out.
Number 313
DANITH WATTS, Budget Analyst, Office of Management and Budget,
Office of the Governor, testified on HB 173, saying that the
Governor's Office is "Certainly for the concept of less paper
floating around." She did not have a fiscal note because it is
very difficult at this point to calculate what the cost would be.
They know this legislation will not cost anything, which is why
they put the fiscal note at zero. It could very well turn out to
be a negative fiscal note in the long run.
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES asked about the average number of copies that
our 60 legislators might print. Ms. Watts could not give her a
figure; it would depend on the size and number of the reports.
Number 370
REPRESENTATIVE ED WILLIS moved to pass the bill out of committee
with individual recommendations. There being no objection, it was
so moved.
HSTA - 02/28/95
Number 390
SCR 4 - POET LAUREATE OF ALASKA
KRAG JOHNSEN, Intern from the University of Alaska Anchorage, was
there to represent Senator Leman who sponsored SCR 4. This piece
of legislation, which establishes the Poet Laureate of Alaska, is
designed to act as a vehicle for confirming Mr. Thomas Sexton for
Poet Laureate of Alaska. Mr. Sexton is a long-time Anchorage
resident and a constituent of Senator Leman's. Mr. Sexton received
his Masters Degree from the University of Alaska Anchorage, and
upon his graduation he spent 24 years as a professor there. He
recently retired with the title of "Emeritus Professor of English."
His poetry has been published in journals across the U.S. and he
has been included in four anthologies.
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER said he was unfamiliar with the program and
asked wondered how it works. He said he currently knows a person
who received Poet Laureate, and this person is now being replaced,
so this cannot be a lifetime appointment.
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN asked if Mr. Sexton is the only candidate and,
also, how a person becomes a candidate for Poet Laureate.
MR. JOHNSEN explained that Poet Laureate is selected and nominated
on the basis of their talent, artistic excellence, and service to
the community. He did not say if there were any other nominees.
In Mr. Sexton's case, he was nominated by the Alaska State Counsel
on the Arts. The appointment is a two-year term, which is
confirmed every new legislative session. Senator Leman has set
forth SCR 4 to name Mr. Thomas Sexton as Poet Laureate of Alaska.
The legislature must confirm that appointment, for it is only
through the legislative process that the Poet Laureate appointment
can be confirmed.
REPRESENTATIVE WILLIS shared that the first Poet Laureate of Alaska
was a Chugiak resident, and she is the grandmother of his staff-
person, Bill Stoltz.
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER made a motion to move SCR 4 out of committee.
There being no objections, the motion passed.
HSTA - 02/28/95
Number 441
HJR 1 - REPEAL OF REGULATIONS BY LEGISLATURE
KYLE PARKER, Legislative Assistant to Representative Gail Phillips,
came to testify on HJR 1. He read the sponsor statement into the
record:
"This Joint Resolution is a proposal to place a constitutional
amendment before the voters of the state of Alaska on the 1996
General Election ballot. The amendment would permit the
Legislature to repeal regulations promulgated by state agencies
that do not properly implement state statutes.
"Many regulations do conform to and accurately implement the laws
passed by the legislature; however, there are an increasing number
of situations where regulations imposed on the citizens of the
state do not. In many cases, legislative directives are ignored or
regulations are promulgated that go far beyond the scope of what
legislature intended. As you know, once regulations go into
effect, they have all the force and effect of law. This is the
case even though regulations are promulgated by agency bureaucrats
who do not have to answer to the voters.
"The Alaska Constitution provides a system of checks and balances
among the three branches of government. The people of Alaska have
their own check on government through the voting booth, the
initiative process, and final authority over amendments to the
Constitution.
"However, one area that is beyond reasonable access to the people's
voice is the tremendous volume of administrative regulations that
are proposed by state agencies and written by attorneys at the
Department of Law. These regulations affect every aspect of the
peoples' lives. Yet the people are virtually powerless to change
them. The constitution amendment proposed by HJR 1 would provide
the people a reasonable avenue to seek the repeal of improper
regulations.
"I recognize that this issue has been before the voters three
different times and prior efforts to persuade the voters to support
similar amendments have failed. Nevertheless, I believe that with
a better campaign presentation, clearer ballot language, and the
current popular support for regulatory reform, we can see this
constitutional amendment become a reality. Now, more than ever,
Alaskans understand how regulations affect their daily lives and I
believe they will support this ballot proposition that brings state
regulations closer to the people. I urge your support of this
important resolution."
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN commented, saying if this is the case, and
there will be a notification and education of the public to get a
better knowledge, it will probably create a very positive attitude
among the voters. He wondered if that should be reflected in the
fiscal note.
MR. PARKER stated that Senator Pearce introduced this bill last
year in the Senate. He said Representatives Phillips and Pearce
have committed to making the education process happen. The fiscal
note was not changed last year. He was not certain how they
envisioned carrying out the voter education. Mr. Parker said the
last time this proposition was on the ballot was in 1986; since
then the concept of regulatory reform has been raised in the
people's consciousness and, this being the case, it will be an
easier campaign.
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN wanted to know what happens if a regulation is
adopted, which is based on a statute that has passed, but the
regulation misses the mark. He asked if the regulation would have
to be thrown out or if it would have to go back to the drafters.
MR. PARKER said the intent is if regulations are promulgated which
go beyond the intent of the enabling legislation, the legislature
can be petitioned to revisit and repeal certain provisions of the
regulation.
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES stated there are things in the Constitution
that need statutes for implementing the regulations. She suspects
the constitutional amendment, by itself, would not give as much
direction. We need statutes to say how these things would happen.
Number 528
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER said it would be appropriate to put on record
the intent of this committee regarding this bill, which is that it
will not be required to annihilate a whole regulation in order to
remove one offensive sentence.
Number 575
REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON asked if this legislation would be put in
the repertoire of bills dealing with regulation reform.
CHAIR JAMES said this bill would be moved forward because anything
done, pertaining to regulation reform, would not be thwarted by
this bill passing or not passing. The bottom line issues on
regulation reform will be discussed in subcommittee.
REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON questioned how this would affect the
separation of powers.
MR. PARKER explained this goes to the point that Representative
Green brought up about how far the legislature can go in writing
regulations. He hoped he was clear in what the intent is behind
the legislature being able to repeal. They would not be in the
situation of rewording a sentence, they would be repealing the
sections. That keeps them out of the regulatory writing process,
which is an executive branch function. In protecting the
legislative intent through this constitutional amendment, the
legislature would have the power to go in and remove sections of
the regulations that offend the intent of the enabling legislation.
REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON brought up the concealed weapon regulations
as an example. The regulations have become law and are being
implemented. So, now, if we decide there is something we do not
like, she asked what the process would be to change it.
MR. PARKER said it would be a resolution that would be passed by
both bodies of the legislature. This constitutional amendment
would allow the legislature to appeal through a resolution. It
would not be a bill.
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES added that there is a statute on the books
that allows the legislature to annul regulation by resolution.
This was challenged in court and was determined to be in violation
of the constitution and the separation of powers. There are
certain procedures for making statutes or laws, all which are
enumerated in the constitution. The only way the legislature can
make law is through statute by the current system. The Governor
should be able to veto everything the legislature does that affects
law. He cannot veto regulations, however; so, if the legislature
were to make a law by resolution, the Governor would not have the
opportunity to veto it. That is where the separation of powers
issue came about.
REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON asked if this bill would require a majority
vote.
CHAIR JAMES affirmed that it would require the majority vote.
Actually, it would take a two-thirds vote to get out of the House.
It would need a majority vote of the public. The language of this
bill does not explain how all these things will be done, and such
concerns ought to be put on the record if this is going to go
forward. We must have backup that supports exactly what it is that
we intend by this constitutional amendment.
Number 619
REPRESENTATIVE WILLIS said he concurs about the importance of
putting everything on the record. He recalled when he was in the
other body years ago when he co-chaired State Affairs, they had a
subcommittee that handled changing the motor vehicle law. It took
about four years to do that, and after he was out of the
legislature for almost ten years, a judge in Kenai called to ask
about the intent of a particular section of the bill from that
committee.
Number 633
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES suggested we make a provision in the statute
that sets a "sunset date" on regulations, and then by statute, the
legislature has the option of either extending the date or not.
That does not challenge the constitution, because the Governor has
the ability to veto it. Representative James' legislation will
involve agencies, legislature and the public in the actual writing
of regulations. Then it can be changed before it becomes final.
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN wanted to confirm, for the record, that the
intent of this resolution is that it will apply to existing
regulations as well as to new ones.
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES assumed that if the legislature can veto
regulations, they can veto any regulations.
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN moved that HJR 1 be passed from committee with
the attached fiscal note of $2,200, and with individual
recommendations. There being no objections, it was so moved.
HSTA - 02/28/95
HB 89 - APPROP: TO PERMANENT FUND PRINCIPAL
Number 672
REPRESENTATIVE TERRY MARTIN, Sponsor of HB 89, presented his
sponsor statement to the committee, as follows:
TAPE 95-22, SIDE B
HB 89 is straightforward and very important. The permanent fund
earnings reserve account was created by statute. It is unto this
account that the balance of the Permanent Fund Corporation's net
income is deposited upon payment of dividends and inflation
proofing. The intent of the bill is to deposit the approximately
$1,146,000,000, as of June 30, 1995, into the corpus of the
permanent fund, escalating the total to approximately
$14,146,000,000. He felt they should save this revenue in the most
secure account possible. The permanent fund is untouchable by the
legislature, hence no special interests can infiltrate the fund and
Alaskans will prosper in the future with a solid savings account
yielding a return of almost nine percent this year. If the
earnings reserve is not appropriated to the permanent fund corpus
by July 1, 1995, there is a strong possibility the court may rule
that it to be used as partial payback to the constitutional budget
reserve (CBR). From this account, it can easily be spent with a
simple majority of the House and Senate.
REPRESENTATIVE MARTIN said HB 89 is intended to send a message to
Alaska's public, that the legislature is willing and able to save
money for future generations. While there are currently annual
projected budget deficits, this legislation makes the statement
that we are willing to deal with the situation through budgetary
reductions or other means, but certainly not by spending these
earnings - simply because they are there.
REPRESENTATIVE MARTIN told the committee that their support of this
legislation will send a signal to the voters that we, as a body,
recognize the fiscal crisis as well as the need to save for future
shortfalls.
Number 063
REPRESENTATIVE MARTIN said this bill has to do with putting a large
amount of money into a permanent savings account. The earnings of
the permanent fund must be spent before they can get into the
Constitutional Budget Reserve account. He voted to approve the CBR
when it came up in the legislature years ago, and was recently
asked if he would have approved the CBR had he known they would
have to redo the inflation proof every year, or, by court decree,
that money would have to go back, first, to pay the CBR off, which
we will never be able to do.
REPRESENTATIVE MARTIN said in 1999, it is computed that all the
money that comes in the general revenue goes right to the CBR,
because it will be automatic by then. If we were to pay the CBR
today, of $1.4 billion that owed, it means $2.8 billion is a new
account. Representative Martin says the CBR is inoperative, it is
going to "be an albatross on the legislators, no matter who is in
charge of the neck." Right now, his question was whether we should
save or put the money into CBR. Some people say to take the
"simple twenty-one" to spend it right now, then legislators can put
it in the permanent fund corpus, or we can use it for this year's
operation. We are about $5.6 million short of new revenues coming
in. Representative Martin said he thinks we should save the money.
This is not to be hard nosed about cutting the budget, but the idea
that this is the future generation's money as well as ours. Once
the state gets to a $20 billion permanent fund corpus, the state
legislators will have more leeway of giving a generous amount in
dividends to the citizens, to inflation proof, and still have
enough money for the new flow to the revenues. Representative
Martin said he was glad that Chair James became co-sponsor of the
bill and urged the committee to get the bill off the table and save
for future generations. The best solution is to put this money
away before we lose it all. After July 1, of this year, we could
lose it all, if the court rules that it must go in as payback to
CBR.
CHAIR JAMES asked if there were any questions. There being no
further questions, she said the problem she had with the CBR is the
three-quarter vote. Representative Martin spoke once before about
the minority being in control, and Chair James said that a three-
quarter vote is a minority vote. It puts the minority in charge.
Of course, it is always presumed that the majority ought to be in
charge. Chair James said she supports this legislation because she
is unwilling to take the earnings reserve of the Permanent Fund,
which is the excess earnings over and above the Permanent Fund
Dividend Program and the inflation proofing, and then require only
a minority vote for it to be spent. Also, because the earning
reserve of the permanent fund is located in the permanent fund, as
opposed to in the general fund, and managed much the same as the
rest of the permanent fund dividend is, the people consider it part
of the permanent fund. It is her feeling, therefore, that the
legislature should make sure it is part of the permanent fund. The
way to make it a certainty is to appropriate it to the permanent
fund. The other option would be to allow this money to be spent
with the three-quarter vote, or put it somewhere where it cannot be
spent with any vote, except by the vote of the people. She said
she supports that concept.
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER agreed with Representative James, and wanted
to add that another reason it should get off the table is that the
appointed or soon to be appointed long range budget commission and
the legislature, has to make some tough decisions while looking
forward to our financial situation. Those decisions can be made
sooner with this money off the table.
Number 109
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER moved to pass HB 89 out of committee, and
there being no objections, the bill was so moved.
HSTA - 02/28/95
Number 129
HCR 11 - SOBRIETY AWARENESS MONTH, MARCH
DEBORAH OSTENDORF, Legislative Aide for Representative Irene
Nicholia, came before the committee to testify on HCR 11. Ms.
Ostendorf noted that HCR 11 designates the month of March as
Sobriety Awareness Month. The Alaska Federation of Natives (AFN)
wants to have the state to recognize those individuals who have
pledged themselves to sobriety. If this resolution passes in a
timely manner, AFN would like to have the resolution, along with
the Governor's Proclamation and signatures of thousands of people
from around the state who pledged themselves to sobriety, to be
taken up the Iditarod Trail, which beings Sunday, March 5.
REPRESENTATIVE BRIAN PORTER told the committee that last year, he
had the pleasure of chairing an alcohol task force of the House.
It gave him the opportunity to go around the state taking testimony
pertaining to the substance abuse problem in Alaska. Of all of the
approaches he knows of to deal with this seemingly insurmountable
problem, this, he believes, is the best. He supports it
wholeheartedly.
REPRESENTATIVE CAREN ROBINSON moved that HCR 11 be passed out of
committee with individual recommendations a zero fiscal note.
There being no objection, the motion passed.
HSTA - 02/28/95
Number 191
HB 163 - COMPLIANCE ESTIMATE COST REQUIREMENTS
ROD MOURANT, Administrative Assistant to Representative Pete Kott,
came before the committee to present HB 163. This legislation
would require an agency, when they are proposing new regulations,
to present a cost compliance estimate with those regulations.
Currently, when regulations are drafted, an agency completes a
fiscal note on the cost of the regulation process, but no cost
compliance estimate is prepared for a private sector impact. The
committee member's packets includes a letter from the National
Federation of Independent Businesses (NFIB) supporting this
concept. Eighty-three percent of their members support the
concept. The original concept of this legislation was included in
the 1995 Alaska Minerals Commission Report, as recommendation
number four. The mining industry experiences the frustration of
regulation without consideration of cost to the industry. Mr.
Mourant said they have fiscal notes from all except for five
agencies. The fiscal notes vary from zero to $178,000, the latter
being from the Department of Environmental Conservation. This is
for merely preparing the cost estimate for compliance with any
regulation, not for compliance with regulation.
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN liked the concept, but wondered if it would be
possible for an individual to get a meaningful or accurate cost
estimate regarding whatever regulation was being proposed.
Number 261
MR. MOURANT answered that when an agency drafts regulations based
on statute adopted by legislation signed into law, they determine
who the constituency is first. Then they fashion the regulation to
comply with the statute they are interpreting. At that time they
should have an estimated idea of what the cost will be, for
instance, the filing of a new tax forms, or the requirement to
build a new ramp of access for handicapped persons. This, of
course, only deals with the adoption of regulations, or the repeal
of regulations.
Number 274
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER followed up by saying he presumed this would
force the agency to contact the affected people and get their
estimate of these costs.
MR. MOURANT agreed that it would certainly urge the agencies to
talk with the affected constituency about the impact of the
proposed legislation, or how the private industry interprets the
proposed legislation.
Number 280
CHAIR JAMES said she thought that evaluating the cost to our
economy would be valuable, and also measuring what the cost benefit
will be. They should be sure that what they do is worth the cost.
Chair James wondered how specific they needed to be, because every
time someone does "a finding," or does a report that backs up what
they do, they must also create evidence for a lawsuit, in case
someone doesn't like it. She liked the concept, but thought they
should avoid being too specific and, thereby, try to do the
lawyer's job for them. She said they also need to get a negative
fiscal note on this bill.
REPRESENTATIVE WILLIS wondered if this was in place in Florida and
if Mr. Mourant heard any feedback.
CHAIR JAMES referred him to a research report from Florida,
provided to them by the sponsor. A point made in the report was
that they determined they needed that legislation, and they went so
far as to require an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), which is
very costly.
CHAIR JAMES noted, for the record, that Representative Ivan was
present.
Number 340
ELMER LINDSTROM, Special Assistant to the Commissioner, Department
of Health and Social Services, said he was not at the meeting to
speak for the Administration, but he had some conversations with
colleagues in other departments and said his agency is one that
submitted a zero fiscal note. They viewed it in relationship with
other regulation bills on the table, specifically HB 130. It
required an economic or detailed analysis, which they regarded as
something that would require additional expertise and costs in
their department, so, consequently, they viewed HB 163 as less
costly. Some agencies looked at HB 163 and did not see the phrase
"cost estimate" as self-defining, and thus regard it as being
similar to the language in HB 130 that would require an economic
analysis. The Executive Branch would need some guidance from the
committee about what the intent of this is, and about the meaning
of "cost estimate."
Number 361
CHAIR JAMES mentioned receiving a package pertaining to regulations
on subsistence living, and legislation that they passed last year.
It was the Department of Administration and the Department of
Health and Social Services regulations that covers both. She
wanted to do an evaluation of those regulations and the statute to
see how much duplication there is from the regulation to the
statute. She is still looking for ways to streamline the process.
Chair James feels if they saw the regulations before the they
passed a statute, they might take another look at whether to do it.
They need to think more thoroughly about what they are creating
when they create these bills, and "take the blame" for the cost of
implementing them.
Number 395
MR. LINDSTROM said he also read the regulations and he recalled
that there were about 50 pages. Most of the verbiage relates to
licensing of homes and so forth. When you get into licensing, it
is tricky.
Number 401
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER asked what the cost of the regulation would
be to the person who wants to be in a certain businesses.
CHAIR JAMES said each agency has its own uniqueness in the kind of
regulations they have. The Florida research report shows that the
legislature made various levels of regulations, and refined it to
say that some didn't need it, and some needed it more extensively.
The decision had to be made about whether or not it was even
necessary. Some regulations didn't apply. She thinks they should
determine just how much policy should be in regulations. Her idea
is that they ought to slim down the policy in the regulations. It
is easier to change or slim down policy than to change or slim down
regulations.
CHAIR JAMES said if there were no more questions or comments they
would put HB 163 with the other bills in the Regulation Review
Committee. She stated that the committee has cleaned up all the
bills, except for HB 81 on preventative maintenance. However, next
Thursday she said we will use the next meeting time for the
subcommittee on regulation reform.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 9:20 a.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|