Legislature(1995 - 1996)
04/06/1995 08:12 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
April 6, 1995
8:12 a.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Jeannette James, Chair
Representative Scott Ogan, Vice Chair
Representative Ivan Ivan
Representative Brian Porter
Representative Joe Green
Representative Caren Robinson
Representative Ed Willis
MEMBERS ABSENT
None
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
HB 267: "An Act relating to review and expiration of
regulations; and providing for an effective date.
PASSED OUT OF COMMITTEE
SB 92: "An Act requiring that, in addition to its operating
budget, all activities of the Alaska Housing Finance
Corporation are subject to the Executive Budget Act.
HEARD AND HELD
HB 232: "An Act establishing an economic development tax
credit; and providing for an effective date.
SCHEDULED BUT NOT HEARD
* HB 241: "An Act relating to the use of a candidates campaign
account.
SCHEDULED BUT NOT HEARD
HB 218: "An Act relating to the payment of certain trucking
operators.
SCHEDULED BUT NOT HEARD
(* First public hearing)
WITNESS REGISTER
MIC MANNS, Representative
Paradise Valley Mining and Development Corporation
Bettles, Alaska 99726
Telephone: 479-5704
POSITION STATEMENT: Supports HB 267
SHEILA PETERSON, Special Assistant
Office of the Commissioner
Department of Education
801 West 10th Street, Suite 200
Juneau, Alaska 99801-1894
Telephone: 465-2803
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 267
DALE ANDERSON, Representative
Commercial Fisheries Entry Commission
880 Glacier Highway
Juneau, Alaska 99801
Telephone: 789-6160
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed HB 267
DEBORAH BEHR, Assistant Attorney General
Legislation and Regulations Sections
Department of Law
P.O. Box 110300
Juneau, Alaska 99811-0300
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed HB 267
BOB BARTHOLEMEW, Deputy Director
Income and Excise Audit Division
Department of Revenue
P.O. Box 110420
Juneau, Alaska 99811-0420
Telephone: 276-5364
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed to HB 267
ELMER LINDSTROM, Special Assistant
Office of the Commissioner
Department of Health and Social Services
P.O. Box 110601
Juneau, Alaska 99811-0601
Telephone: 465-3030
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed to HB 267
SHARON BARTON, Director
Division of Administrative Services
Department of Administration
P.O. Box 110208
Juneau, Alaska 99811-0208
Telephone: 465-2277
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed to HB 267
TAMARA COOK, Director
Legislative Legal Services
Legislative Affairs Agency
130 Seward Street, Suite 409
Juneau, Alaska 99801-2105
Telephone: 465-2450
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided information on HB 267
REPRESENTATIVE TERRY MARTIN
Alaska State Legislature
State Capitol, Room 502
Juneau, Alaska 99801
Telephone: 465-3783
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided sponsor statement
MIKE DAVIS, Representative
Bristol Bay Housing Authority
P.O. Box 50
Dillingham, Alaska 99576
Telephone: 842-5956
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed to SB 92
JAN SIEBERTS, Senior Vice President
National Bank of Alaska
P.O. Box 100600
Anchorage, Alaska 99502
Telephone: 564-9326
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed to SB 92
HEATHER ARNETT, Executive Coordinator
Association of Alaska Housing Authorities
520 East 34th Street
Anchorage, Alaska 99503
Telephone: 562-7119
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed to SB 92
WILLIAM HOWE, Deputy Commissioner
Treasury Division
Department of Revenue
P.O. Box 110405
Juneau, Alaska 99811-0405
Telephone: 465-4880
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed to SB 92
TOM WILLIAMS, Legislative Assistant
Senator Steve Frank
Alaska State Legislature
State Capitol, Room 518
Juneau, Alaska 99801
Telephone: 465-3709
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided sponsor support for SB 92
PREVIOUS ACTION
BILL: HB 267
SHORT TITLE: REGULATION REVIEW AND EXPIRATION
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) JAMES,Kelly
JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION
03/17/95 779 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
03/17/95 779 (H) STATE AFFAIRS, FINANCE
03/20/95 825 (H) COSPONSOR(S): KELLY
03/23/95 (H) STA AT 08:00 AM CAPITOL 102
03/23/95 (H) MINUTE(STA)
03/28/95 (H) STA AT 08:00 AM CAPITOL 102
03/28/95 (H) MINUTE(STA)
03/30/95 (H) STA AT 08:00 AM CAPITOL 102
03/30/95 (H) MINUTE(STA)
04/04/95 (H) STA AT 08:00 AM CAPITOL 102
04/04/95 (H) MINUTE(STA)
04/06/95 (H) STA AT 08:00 AM CAPITOL 102
BILL: SB 92
SHORT TITLE: AHFC SUBJECT TO EXEC. BUDGET ACT
SPONSOR(S): RULES BY REQUEST OF LEGISLATIVE BUDGET AND AUDIT
JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION
02/21/95 349 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
02/21/95 349 (S) STA, FIN
02/28/95 (S) STA AT 03:30 PM BELTZ ROOM 211
02/28/95 (S) MINUTE(STA)
03/01/95 436 (S) STA RPT 4DP
03/01/95 436 (S) ZERO FISCAL NOTE (REV #1)
03/15/95 617 (S) FIN RPT 6DP 1NR
03/15/95 617 (S) PREVIOUS ZERO FN (REV #1)
03/15/95 (S) FIN AT 09:00 AM SENATE FINANCE 532
03/15/95 (S) MINUTE(FIN)
03/16/95 (S) RLS AT 12:00 PM FAHRENKAMP RM 203
03/16/95 (S) MINUTE(RLS)
03/17/95 664 (S) RULES TO CALENDAR 3/17/95
03/17/95 666 (S) READ THE SECOND TIME
03/17/95 666 (S) ADVANCED TO THIRD READING UNAN
CONSENT
03/17/95 666 (S) READ THE THIRD TIME SB 92
03/17/95 666 (S) PASSED Y18 N- E2
03/17/95 679 (S) TRANSMITTED TO (H)
03/20/95 802 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
03/20/95 802 (H) STATE AFFAIRS, FINANCE
03/30/95 (H) STA AT 08:00 AM CAPITOL 102
03/30/95 (H) MINUTE(STA)
04/04/95 (H) STA AT 08:00 AM CAPITOL 102
04/04/95 (H) MINUTE(STA)
04/04/95 (H) MINUTE(STA)
04/06/95 (H) STA AT 08:00 AM CAPITOL 102
BILL: HB 232
SHORT TITLE: ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT TAX CREDIT
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) KOTT
JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION
03/06/95 590 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
03/06/95 590 (H) ECD, STA, L&C, FINANCE
03/21/95 (H) ECD AT 09:00 AM CAPITOL 17
03/21/95 (H) MINUTE(ECD)
03/22/95 850 (H) ECD RPT CS(ECD) 6DP
03/22/95 850 (H) DP: KELLY,MOSES,MACLEAN,KOHRING
03/22/95 850 (H) DP: SANDERS, ROKEBERG
03/22/95 850 (H) INDETERMINATE FISCAL NOTE (REV)
03/22/95 850 (H) FISCAL NOTE (DCED)
03/22/95 850 (H) REFERRED TO STATE AFFAIRS
04/04/95 (H) STA AT 08:00 AM CAPITOL 102
04/04/95 (H) MINUTE(STA)
04/06/95 (H) STA AT 08:00 AM CAPITOL 102
BILL: HB 241
SHORT TITLE: NO PERSONAL USE OF CAMPAIGN ACCOUNT
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) BUNDE,Rokeberg
JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION
03/08/95 642 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
03/08/95 642 (H) STATE AFFAIRS, FINANCE
03/10/95 713 (H) COSPONSOR(S): ROKEBERG
04/06/95 (H) STA AT 08:00 AM CAPITOL 102
BILL: HB 218
SHORT TITLE: PROMPT PAYMENT OF TRUCKING SUBCONTRACTORS
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) JAMES BY REQUEST
JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION
03/01/95 531 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
03/01/95 531 (H) STATE AFFAIRS, TRANSPORTATION,
JUDICIARY
03/07/95 (H) STA AT 08:00 AM CAPITOL 102
03/07/95 (H) MINUTE(STA)
03/23/95 (H) STA AT 08:00 AM CAPITOL 102
04/06/95 (H) STA AT 08:00 AM CAPITOL 102
ACTION NARRATIVE
TAPE 95-44, SIDE A
Number 000
The meeting of the House State Affairs Standing Committee was
called to order at 8:12 a.m. Members present at the call to order
were Representatives James, Ogan, Ivan, and Porter. Representative
Green arrived at 8:15 a. m. Representatives Robinson and Willis
arrived at 8:37 a.m.
HB 267 - REGULATION REVIEW AND EXPIRATION
CHAIR JEANNETTE JAMES announced the first bill on the agenda was HB
267, dealing with regulation review and expiration. She explained
there was a committee substitute in their packets, incorporating
changes suggested by the subcommittee that met with the
Administration and committee members. She mentioned there was also
a sectional brief explaining changes from the original bill. These
changes were the result of consultation with the Administration and
the public to try and make the bill more functional. She stated
Section 5, subsection A is amended to expire regulations on
December 1, as opposed to the original date of June 30. This would
allow a sufficient amount of time for the agencies to react to an
expiration of their regulation by the legislature. Subsection B is
altered to prohibit a regulation from being readopted with the
same substantive effect, versus the original wording of same
form. This clarified the intent of the bill. Subsection C was
amended to clarify the wording of the bill extending the sunset of
regulations. The new wording incorporated into the bill would be
Expiration of all regulations of each agency under AS 24.20.402 is
postponed for one year except the following..... The bill would
then list those regulations scheduled to expire the following
December 1. She explained this wording of the bill was necessary
to prevent any regulations from being overlooked and accidentally
expiring. Subsection D states that before January 1 of each year,
the Administrative Regulatory Review Committee shall submit a
letter to the Governor identifying each regulation the committee
intends to list for expiration on the bill to be submitted that
session, together with the reasons for failing to postpone the
expiration date of those regulations. She thought this would give
the Administration an opportunity to prepare its rebuttal to try
and convince the legislature not to expire those regulations, or to
amend the listed regulations to comply with the legislatures
wishes. Subsection E exempts the Board of Fish and the Board of
Game from the annual expiration of their regulations. Section 8 of
HB 267 is amended to only require the agencies to submit to the
Administrative Regulation Review Committee within 14 days after
adoption, repeal, or amendment of a regulation a copy of the
regulation change and any fiscal information prepared under AS
44.62.195. This information is required for submittal under
current law and should not add any extra expense to the agencies.
Any other information will be provided only at the request of the
committee. She explained this complies with Representative Gary
Davis HB 173, which aims to reduce the amount of extraneous
paperwork being submitted by the agencies to the legislature. She
said that because the Administrative Regulation Review Committee
will be only reviewing those regulations brought to its attention
by public complaint, this requirement of only submitting the
information at the request of the committee seemed to be reasonable
and more cost-effective. She mentioned the committee also was
provided a map from the National Conference of State Legislatures,
that detailed the type of legislative review over regulations which
were required in each of the 50 states. She explained the
Administrative Regulation Review Committee in Alaska has not been
very active since the ALIVE case of 1980, which took away their
authority to demand changes if they perceived a problem in a
regulation. Thus, their incentive to conduct any review of
regulations has been minimal and the current chair of the
committee, Senator Randy Phillips, has suggested disbanding the
committee. She further stated she had an additional chart, that
documented which of those states with legislative oversight of
regulations have advisory powers only and which have the authority
to make changes. She said about half of the 50 states have some
type of authority to implement changes in regulations. Four
states, Colorado, Utah, Tennessee, and Idaho have implemented
statutes similar to HB 267. She stated Colorado has had their law
in effect for 15 years. She mentioned there were people on
teleconference to testify, but wanted to answer any questions from
the committee first.
REPRESENTATIVE IVAN IVAN stated he had a proposed amendment to HB
267 to introduce when the time was appropriate.
CHAIR JAMES said a copy of this amendment was on the table for
committee members to review and explained this amendment would
exclude the Alaska Commercial Fisheries Entry Commission from the
expiration of their regulations. She thought they should take
testimony from the public before deciding on whether to adopt this
amendment.
Number 213
MIC MANNS, Representative of Paradise Valley Mining and
Development, offered support for HB 267. He said the Constitution
is very clear in giving the legislature the responsibility of
making laws for the state and not an appointed official of the
Governor. He stated he had personally felt the effect of bad
regulatory decisions from the Department of Natural Resources and
the Department of Fish and Game, which had cost his company
millions of dollars. As an example, one employee in the Department
of Fish and Game forced them to build a 7000 foot dike and canal in
a creek that did not have any fish in it. He said the court
documentation of this incident was absolutely proof positive that
there was a need for legislative oversight of regulations, in order
to correct these deficiencies. Their company cannot afford to
fight an agency with 209 attorneys on staff, he said. This
incident took over eight years in court and he felt if there had
been legislative oversight, it would never have occurred in the
first place. He also cited an incident of land they had staked in
the 1960s and 1970s, which the Department of Natural Resources had
not yet relinquished title to and have claimed they could not do
so, when the state law says they must. He thought these types of
affairs must be put to an end if the state was to ever accomplish
economic development and if its citizens were to guarantee a future
for their children. He said it was necessary for the
Administration to comply with laws that were drafted by the people,
who had elected the legislature to represent them. He argued it
was not the right of an appointed official in an agency to override
the intelligent minds of the elected legislators, who were chosen
by the people of Alaska to represent them and make these decisions.
He mentioned he had provided written documentation of the incidents
to Representative James and would encourage the legislature to
realize they are the ones the people were counting on for their
future. He reiterated his support for HB 267.
CHAIR JAMES thanked Mr. Mann for his testimony and documents. She
wanted to point out that HB 267 was only a small part of her
regulation reform efforts and that she would be working over the
interim, with a commitment of support from the Administration, on
a bill that would improve the process of how regulations are
written in response to legislative intent and make them easier to
be implemented by those being regulated.
MR. MANN mentioned when Larry Galloway was the Deputy Commissioner
in an Anchorage office, he had on file over 640 cases in his office
that would have never occurred had the legislature had the ability
of oversight. He hoped the legislature would get the message and
not allow this to be pushed aside like when Governor Sheffield
vetoed it.
Number 297
SHEILA PETERSON, Special Assistant, Office of the Commissioner,
Department of Education, said she could understand the
legislatures frustration over how regulations are promulgated in
this state. However, she wanted to bring to the attention of the
committee the uniqueness of the Department of Education, with
regard to the adoption of regulations. She mentioned the State
Board of Education is the head of the department. This board is
the policy maker. This seven member committee is appointed by the
Governor and confirmed by the legislature. These members represent
all judicial districts of the state and no more than four may be of
the same political party as the Governor. She felt this board
represented a cross-section of the people of Alaska. She pointed
out that the board appoints the commissioner with the approval of
the Governor. She argued that as new regulations are promulgated,
all decisions are made in a public forum with public testimony and
notice. As this is a public board, she requested the committee
exempt the Board of Education from this legislation. She stated
she was aware that if the committee exempted many different
agencies from this bill, it could become ineffective. But she felt
the Board and Department of Education was unique in its system of
promulgating regulations. She argued the current process of how
they promulgated regulations was ideal. She again requested the
committee exempt the Board of Education from HB 267.
CHAIR JAMES asked if the committee had any questions for Ms.
Peterson. Hearing none, she called on Dale Anderson to testify.
Number 348
DALE ANDERSON, Representative for the Commercial Fisheries Entry
Commission, requested an exemption for their group from the
expiration of their regulations. He was concerned HB 267 would
affect the economics of their organization adversely, saying he had
mentioned this at an earlier meeting. He was also concerned about
the effects this would have on the commissions adjudicatory
powers. He stated one of the main functions of the commission was
to settle disputes with denied applicants. He thought HB 267 could
threaten the integrity of the body of law they had developed over
the past 20 years. He argued the commission was originally
developed as a result of a vote of the people and public input was
foremost in their minds as a body. He pointed out the commission
does not even limit a fishery without the request of the public.
He further mentioned that all of the steps of their process for
gathering public input are established by regulation and so would
be subject to expiration under HB 267. He also feared that any
length of time without regulations in effect could allow people to
enter a fishery who were not worthy. He reiterated his request for
an exemption from the expiration of their regulations.
Number 457
DEBORAH BEHR, Regulations Attorney for the Department of Law, said
she wanted to address the proposed committee substitute for HB 267.
She wanted to clarify that single people were not writing
regulations. She also thought the Administrative Regulation Review
Committee could take a more active role in the regulatory process
by performing regulatory audits. She argued there were still legal
problems regarding the Constitutions separation of powers clause
in that she felt this bill would not allow the Governor the
opportunity to veto. She argued this was a violation of the ALIVE
case of 1980. She pointed out that Idaho, who has this law in
effect, can annul regulations by resolution, without a
constitutional problem. Their courts have ruled this is
constitutional. Thus, she was concerned there were only three
states remaining with this law in effect, which had unresolved
constitutional issues such as ours. She stated she was also
concerned the bill had no protection for the system, should the
legislature fail to pass a bill. She was also concerned about a
violation of the Constitutions single-subject rule, in that she
compared the bill to be drafted under HB 267 as being similar to
the revisors bill. She said the revisors bill was an exception
to the single-subject rule and she did not think it was intended to
have other similar bills allowed. She said Alaskas courts have
not liked bills that deal with more than one subject. Thus, she
felt with these unresolved legal issues, there would be a cloud
over the validity of all regulations. On page 4, lines 19-23, she
expressed concern over the section that allowed the Administrative
Regulation Review Committee to file an objection with the
Lieutenant Governors Office on a regulation, which then shifts the
burden of proof to the agency to prove that a regulation is valid
and meets legislative intent. She stated her problem was that
prior court decisions had not allowed the legislature to delegate
its rule-making authority to a subcommittee of itself. She stated
the Department of Law would be recommending a veto of this bill to
the Governors Office. She stated should the committee decide to
pass the bill, she had some technical concerns to mention. On page
3, line 8, she had some concern about the wording same substantive
effect. She thought this would be a possible source of
litigation, as there was no definition of same substantive
effect. On page 3, line 2, she suggested the legislature should
consider looking only at incremental changes on an annual basis,
and not at every regulation. She mentioned two of the states do
this. She also suggested tying the sunset of regulations for
boards and commissions with the sunset of the boards themselves.
On page 3, line 21, she suggested a slight modification to read
regulations required for compliance with federal law. On page 4,
line 27, she thought it might be a better suggestion to have this
section read 14 days after filing of a regulation, rather than the
original reading of 14 days after adoption. She stated she looked
at HB 267 to try and see if there were any added costs to state
government, because of this bill. Thus, she warned about the
committees zeroing out of fiscal notes. She thought there would
also be costs for the extra meeting of boards in order to comply
with requirements of this bill. She offered to answer questions
from the committee.
Number 645
REPRESENTATIVE SCOTT OGAN asked Ms. Behr if she thought there would
be problems for the Big Game Commercial Services Board under this
bill.
MS. BEHR thought there would be. She suggested a better way of
handling this situation would be to change the statute and not
expire the regulations. She claimed the Governor vetoes very few
regulations. Thus, she thought the existing system was working
just fine.
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN asked if she thought this board should be
exempted from the expiration provisions of this bill.
MS. BEHR thought it should be and compared it to the Board of Fish
and the Board of Game.
CHAIR JAMES commented she was hearing a tendency in the testimony
that the legislature was stupid and not capable of handling these
tough decisions. She thought the legislature had a good historical
record of making sound decisions and wanted it on the record to
reflect that. She said it sounded as if the legislature was being
impugned by the testimony.
MS. BEHR apologized, saying she did not intend it to sound that
way. She simply wanted to mention there could be an emergency
situation if the legislature failed to pass the bill by its
constitutionally mandated adjournment date.
Number 678
BOB BARTHOLEMEW, Deputy Director, Income and Excise Audit Division,
Department of Revenue, stated the majority of their statutes
contained the statement those statutes would be implemented by
regulations promulgated by the Department of Revenue. In
discussion with the commissioner, he said he was asked to point out
the large amount of resources and time going into the development
of regulations. Their concern was that if these regulations were
to expire, this effort would have to be redone at great expense.
He said he wanted to point out that the collection of revenue by
the state would not work without the regulations. He urged the
committee to focus on the problem regulations and not to establish
such a broad sweeping review of regulations.
TAPE 95-44, SIDE B
Number 000
CHAIR JAMES mentioned that HB 267 contained a provision requiring
the Administrative Regulation Review Committee to submit to the
Governor a list of all of those regulations they intend to sunset
by January 1. She pointed out that the agencies then had until
December 1 to amend the regulations to comply with the wishes of
the legislature. She stated she understood the time and effort
that have gone into the writing of regulations, having followed the
process, but she felt that the legislature was a competent enough
body to do a good review and that their fears were unjustified.
She did not foresee the legislature allowing the types of disasters
to occur that they were predicting. She thought the time frame and
provisions of the bill were enough to make it work fine.
MR. BARTHOLEMEW agreed the legislature was competent, but thought
there was a legitimate concern of the legislature failing to extend
regulations by the passage of a bill.
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN commented the legislature made reasonably good
decisions on occasion, but thought they were sometimes motivated by
political considerations and not the merit of the legislation. He
thought the regulation boards were set up to be more focused on a
particular subject, rather than being a quasi-expert on many
issues. He thought the volume of issues they have to deal with
sometimes preclude legislators from focusing on a particular issue
as much as they may need to.
Number 138
REPRESENTATIVE BRIAN PORTER expressed appreciation for the concerns
of Mr. Ogan. He said that was why the regulatory boards and
process were set up. He argued though, that if the process were
working, the legislature would not be addressing this issue. He
recognized this bill allowed all regulations to be potentially up
for review, but pointed out the legislature would only be reviewing
those brought to its attention by public complaint. He said the
legislature would thus limit its attention to those which were
difficult to comply with and had strayed from legislative intent.
He stated whether the legislature made a good or a bad decision was
a matter of perspective, but it was still the will of the
legislature and should not be thwarted by an individual in an
agency, who found themselves with the power to write regulations as
they individually felt like it. He said that had happened in the
past and that was what this bill was aiming to prevent.
Number 175
ELMER LINDSTROM, Special Assistant, Office of the Commissioner,
Department of Health and Social Services, reiterated the comments
of Ms. Behr, that an amendment was needed to exempt regulations
needed to comply with federal mandates and not just required by
federal mandates. He thought that when you take many issues, that
are controversial individually, and place them in the same bill,
there is a very strong likelihood that you will not get a consensus
of the legislature and the bill extending the expiration of
regulations may not pass. This is a real fear to the agencies.
Number 215
CHAIR JAMES thought it was a matter of accountability, and if the
legislature made that mistake, they would be held responsible. She
said under the current system, there is no one to hold accountable.
She said that was why the members of the public she had talked to
were so supportive of this bill. Currently, if the public
complained to the legislature about a regulation, they were told
the Administration writes regulations. If they took their
complaints to the Administration about regulations, they were
informed the agencies only write regulations to comply with
legislative statutes. Thus, the public felt like there was no one
to hold accountable and blame for bad regulations. She said HB 267
would put the blame on the legislature and give the public some
recourse if they did not like the regulatory process. She stated
the legislature was constitutionally mandated to provide the laws
for this state and should be held responsible.
Number 229
SHARON BARTON, Director of Administrative Services, Department of
Administration, commented she had recently come across a memo from
1979 dealing with regulation reform. She mentioned the issues they
were dealing with then, were essentially the same as the ones being
discussed now. Thus, she said, although the Administration had
legal problems and concerns about implementation of this bill, they
agreed it was time to try to find a solution. She thought there
were essentially three areas needing to be addressed: 1) Bad
regulations; 2) bad regulatory process; and 3) bad implementation
of regulations. She thought this was a large area to deal with.
She expressed her appreciation of the willingness of Chair James to
listen to the concerns of the Administration in dealing with this
issue.
CHAIR JAMES stated there was actually a fourth problem and that was
bad statutes. She thought if this bill went into effect, it would
help the legislature to find bad statutes and fix them. She
reiterated the issue was one of accountability and that the
legislature gave the Administration the authority to write
regulations, without saving some oversight ability for itself. She
felt this was a bad decision. She said although she also shared
concerns about making sure everything was constitutional and legal,
she thought sometimes legislators needed to take responsibility and
see if there was a legal challenge. She vowed to work extensively
with the Administration over the interim to try and develop a
regulatory process that was more efficient and user-friendly. She
asked Tamara Cook, legal drafter for HB 267, to come forward to
answer questions from the committee and thanked her for
participating.
Number 286
TAMARA COOK, Director, Legislative Legal Services, said she was
willing to answer questions from the committee.
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER asked if she thought it was necessary to
change the language of HB 267 to exempt regulations necessary to
comply with federal regulations.
MS. COOK stated she was not convinced it would make any difference.
She thought it was a question of whether the legislature wanted to
exempt just regulations that were required in a particular form by
federal law, while reserving the right of the legislature to review
regulations that were mandated for compliance with federal law, but
with which the state had several options to achieve compliance.
She said most of the time, the state would be given considerable
flexibility. Thus, she thought it was a policy call of the
legislature and felt the existing language allowed for additional
flexibility. She also wasnt sure the language suggested by Ms.
Behr would preclude the legislature from reviewing a particular set
of regulations, although she thought it would probably place a
larger number of regulations outside of its jurisdiction for
review. She said she had no problem making the change if it was
the will of the committee.
Number 329
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER stated this was exactly his concern, that the
legislature would be placing regulations outside of its
jurisdiction for review by adopting the language suggested by Ms.
Behr, that it really wanted within its ability to review. He
agreed the legislature would not want to review regulations meeting
the minimum standard of federal law, but would want to review
regulations that exceeded that standard.
MS. COOK thought there could be great argument as to what defined
the mandatory minimum requirement for compliance with federal law,
depending on ones perspective. She stated her hunch was that the
existing language was probably just as good as that suggested by
Ms. Behr.
Number 347
REPRESENTATIVE JOE GREEN asked if Ms. Cook thought this bill would
violate the single-subject rule of Alaskas Constitution.
MS. COOK thought HB 267 complied with the single-subject rule,
according to case law to date. She said that to overturn this bill
as violating the single-subject rule, the courts would have to be
stricter in their interpretation than they had been to date. She
stated there was an expression of annoyance by the court of the
broad flexibility given to the legislature regarding the
single-subject rule, but to date they have not taken a strict
enough interpretation to cause this bill to be out of compliance.
CHAIR JAMES mentioned there was a memo in the committee packets
from Ms. Cook regarding this issue, if any of the members wished to
read it.
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN stated he wanted it in the record for that
reason, as earlier testimony from Ms. Behr seemed to contradict
these statements.
CHAIR JAMES asked if there were any other questions from the
committee for Ms. Cook. Hearing none, she thanked Ms. Cook for her
testimony.
REPRESENTATIVE CAREN ROBINSON asked if it was Chair James
intention to pass HB 267 out of committee that day.
CHAIR JAMES replied it was and that she also intended to hear the
committees wishes regarding the proposed amendment of
Representative Ivan.
Number 395
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER moved for the committee to adopt CSHB 267
version F as the working draft for discussion.
CHAIR JAMES asked if there was any objection. Hearing none, the
committee substitute was adopted.
REPRESENTATIVE IVAN IVAN moved for the committee to adopt his
amendment, exempting the Alaska Commercial Fisheries Entry
Commission, for CSHB 267.
CHAIR JAMES asked if there was any objection to passing this
amendment. Hearing none, the amendment for CSHB 267 was adopted.
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN requested the Big Game Commercial Services
Board also be exempted from the expiration of their regulations.
CHAIR JAMES stated her preference that the committee not exempt any
more entities from HB 267, but said she would leave that to the
wishes of the committee. She pointed out that she would be doing
an extensive study of the regulatory process with the
Administration over the interim, and that it could be reviewed then
which agencies should be exempted from this bill. She wanted to
reiterate she thought there was sufficient time included in this
bill to allow the agencies to properly react should their
regulations be allowed to expire by the legislature. She said
Representative Ogan was free to seek the approval of the committee
for exempting the Big Game Commercial Services board, but her
desire was that they not exempt any more groups.
REPRESENTATIVE ED WILLIS clarified whether she meant she was
planning to work on HB 267 over the interim or a different bill.
CHAIR JAMES stated she was referring to HB 105, which dealt with a
comprehensive overhaul of the regulatory process. She planned to
work with the Administration and the public to decide on how best
to accomplish a complete overhaul of the regulatory process to make
it more efficient and user friendly. She explained this bill was
meant to be an alternative to HJR 1, which recently passed the
House of Representatives 34 to 4 and would allow the legislature to
annul a regulation by resolution. HJR 1 would require a
constitutional amendment to effect that change of law.
Number 447
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN moved to exempt the Big Game Commercial
Services board from the expiration of their regulations under HB
267.
CHAIR JAMES asked if there were any objections.
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER objected.
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN explained he wanted to exempt this board,
because the current process was established after considerable
public input following a lawsuit over the former system. He said
the system was under intense scrutiny by the Attorney Generals
office and was thus in a delicate balance between the courts and
the public. He was fearful if this board fell under the
jurisdiction of HB 267, it could end up in the courts again.
Number 473
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER stated with due respect to the Attorney
Generals office, this was the same office that had said the bill
passed by the legislature last year, appropriating funds from the
Constitutional Budget Reserve, was constitutional and a court
decided otherwise. Thus, he said there were no guarantees based
upon the information coming from the Department of Law. He said he
could make a similar argument regarding boards he had served on,
but thought that they had to make that leap of faith to decide the
legislature was responsible enough to take care of business and
only identify those regulations for sunset that had serious
problems that havent been able to be worked out with the
Administration. He said he was ready to make that leap of faith
and wanted the legislature to have some clout when making these
recommendations to the Administration.
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN withdrew his motion.
Number 486
REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON moved to exempt the Department of Education
from the expiration of their regulations under HB 267. She thought
they had a good public process and pointed out school starts before
the legislature convenes. She thought they were another group that
the legislature should not be tying its hands.
CHAIR JAMES responded that it was a matter of who was in charge.
She thought the legislature was the one charged to make laws in
this state and personally thought the fears being raised were
unwarranted.
REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON replied it was also the responsibility of
the legislature to know what regulations they were putting into
effect when they pass legislation. She argued the legislature had
given the authority to the Board of Education to write regulations
and should trust them to make those decisions. She did not want
the school district to have to wait until the legislative session
to allow schools to implement their policies. She understood that
by passing this bill, the legislature would be doing this.
Number 518
CHAIR JAMES said this was not true and pointed out that any
regulations promulgated after January 1, 1995, would not expire
until December 1, 1996. She stated there would be a legislative
session in between to have the legislature decide whether to
extend the expiration. She thought there was plenty of time
between January 1 and December 1 of the following year to allow the
agencies to amend their regulations as necessary to meet the
legislatures recommendations. She reiterated the motion was to
exempt the Board of Education from HB 267 and asked if there was
any objection.
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER objected.
CHAIR JAMES called for a roll call vote. Representatives Willis
and Robinson voted in favor. Representatives Porter, Ivan, Green,
Ogan, and James voted in opposition.
Number 531
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER moved to pass CSHB 267 version F out of
committee as amended with individual recommendations and attached
fiscal notes.
CHAIR JAMES asked if there were any objections.
REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON objected. She stated she could appreciate
the fact there was a need for regulatory reform, but felt this
legislature was continuing to pass a series of regulation reform
bills, but that they had not clearly defined what the problem was.
Thus, she felt they may just be putting a band-aid over the
problem, rather than really solving the problem. She stated she
was hoping to put all of the regulation reform bills into the
interim for study, rather than just passing bills through the
legislature that may not address the problem.
Number 560
CHAIR JAMES responded that she agreed with Representative Robinson,
but pointed out that each of the bills that are in the legislature
address a different aspect of a large problem, which together will
help to accomplish an overall solution. She also pointed out that
HB 267 does start the process of repealing regulations, if that is
the decision of the legislature. She stated it gives the authority
to the legislature to actually start repealing unnecessary or
unfair regulations. She thought this bill would start a process
that would allow the legislature to locate bad statutes and repeal
them side by side with bad regulations. She did not think the
fears of a total disruption of the state were real, pointing out
this was not the case in those states with this law in effect. She
said it did clarify though, that it was the responsibility of the
legislature to make laws for the state and be accountable for the
consequences.
REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON was also concerned about passing a bill
that was likely to be vetoed by the Governor.
CHAIR JAMES stated she shared Representative Robinsons concerns,
but felt this issue was so important that the legislature needed to
proceed and take that risk.
REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON suggested that the legislature could slow
down the process, by passing less legislation into law. She
thought maybe bills should be sent to the budget regulation review
police before being heard on the House floor. She thought the
legislature should try to get ahead of the game, instead of always
trying to react after the fact.
CHAIR JAMES answered that when the train is going down the hill,
it is really hard to stop it. She thought HB 267 was starting to
apply the brakes. She asked if there were any other comments from
the committee, or if they were ready to vote.
Number 598
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER mentioned there had been testimony from the
Administration, that in reviewing historical documentation of
regulation reform, they had discovered the same problems were cited
in 1979, as are currently being discussed. He pointed out that the
reason the legislature was still discussing these issues, was that
the legislature just studied the issue and did not pass their
regulation reform bill then. Thus, he thought it was necessary the
legislature try to deal with the problem, rather than just
discussing it. He said he recognized HB 267 did not address all of
the problems individually that had been mentioned, but he did not
think one bill could accomplish that task. He cited several
examples of runaway regulations, that indicated the need for some
type of review of the regulatory process. He argued this oversight
could not be accomplished with any degree of success, without the
potential to do something about it. He thought this bill would
provide the leverage needed to do that. He argued that possibly
the Administration would have a better idea of what legislative
intent was if they did not keep vetoing legislative intent
letters.
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN expressed his favor for the concept, but also
had some concerns about this bill. On page 4, he was concerned
that if a regulation came up for expiration and the legislature
failed to pass a bill to postpone that expiration, the state might
be caught in a compromising position where regulations have been
allowed to expire without a solution necessarily being found. He
was concerned about passing this bill out of committee, as the next
committee may not be as thorough about reviewing the true intent of
this bill. Thus, he suggested possibly holding this bill in this
committee to try and develop a better bill.
CHAIR JAMES pointed out that if the legislature failed to pass a
bill extending the sunset of regulations, every single regulation
would expire. She asked if he thought the legislature would allow
that situation to occur.
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN argued it was improper to give that authority
to the Administrative Regulation Review Committee, to say that a
regulation is to sunset, when it might just need a small tweak to
fix it. He was concerned that such a regulation could be allowed
to sunset and then not be allowed to be adopted in substantially
the same form. He was concerned that members of this committee
might just develop an attitude problem and be able to abuse their
power.
CHAIR JAMES explained this bill was being passed by a statute,
which had three readings and committee referrals. She argued the
Administrative Regulation Review Committee was just introducing the
bill and would not be in the position to abuse their power as he
feared. She asked if he believed that all 60 members of the
legislature would not allow a bill to be passed, when the result
would be that all regulations would expire on December 1.
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN thought that by blackmailing a bill to avoid
having all regulations expire was improper. He was concerned about
rushing a bill through the process that may not be exactly what
they wanted to do.
Number 660
REPRESENTATIVE WILLIS thought the concept was good, but said he
shared some of the same concerns as Representative Green. He
thought Chair James had stated earlier that she wanted to send the
best possible bill they could out of this committee. He also
expressed his hopes that they might hold this bill as a project for
the interim. He emphasized he did not oppose this approach, but
thought maybe this committee could develop a better bill if they
held it.
REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON asked if anyone had raised the question of
how this bill would affect the business climate of this state. She
said she had been told other states had this law and wondered how
it was working for their business community.
CHAIR JAMES said she had talked to Colorado and Utah, who had this
law in effect and that Denver and Salt Lake City were some of the
fastest growing business centers on the West Coast. She said many
of the businesses were unaware that it was happening, as the amount
of regulations that expired were so few and insignificant. She
commented they had had this law in effect for 15 years and stated
most of the language for HB 267 came from the Colorado law as a
model.
Number 697
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER mentioned that at the Alaska State Chamber of
Commerce breakfast earlier that morning, he described HB 267 and
they were elated. They strongly favored this legislation.
REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON argued the State Chamber had been in favor
of all of the regulation reform bills proceeding through the
legislature.
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER stated she had asked how the business
community felt about this bill and the Alaska State Chamber of
Commerce represented the business community of this state.
REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON said she was not sure that the State
Chamber had thoroughly thought out all aspects of the various
regulation reform bills, before expressing their support for them.
She stated she did not doubt their sincerity in wanting regulatory
change, but did not know if they had thoroughly thought out the
issues involved.
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER mentioned there had been a fear expressed by
some of the agencies that this would create an instability in the
regulatory climate. He argued the cloud was already there, as the
agencies could modify regulations with much more ease than the
legislature. He also pointed out the legislature can amend the
statutes whenever it decides, thus altering the accompanying
regulations. Thus, he did not feel this bill would change the
business climate from its current situation. He also stated the
legislature could pass a statute with a two-thirds margin of
support, to have it completely subverted by a few people sitting in
an agency who disagreed. This he thought was wrong and he thought
this bill would help to correct it.
TAPE 95-45, SIDE A
Number 000
CHAIR JAMES thought the decision the committee had to make, was
whether they thought the legislature should have oversight over the
regulatory process. She mentioned there were only two ways to
accomplish this, and that was a constitutional amendment, allowing
the legislature to annul a regulation by resolution as suggested by
HJR 1, and the other was this bill. She did not believe the
argument was whether this would create chaos in the business
climate of the state, or if this would create incompetence in the
regulatory system, but whether the legislature should have some
type of oversight. She thought they needed to have oversight and
there were only these two methods to accomplish it. She thought
there was a need for legislative oversight and that was why she
supported this bill.
Number 038
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN disagreed that it was just a question of
legislative oversight. He stated he would like legislative
oversight, but not just under this bill the way it was written.
Thats why he wanted to have a more extensive review of this bill
in this committee. He said he was not suggesting to defeat the
bill in this committee, just to review some of the issues that had
been raised more thoroughly.
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN expressed his discontent with the bill. He
agreed that there was a need for legislative oversight, but was not
sure of the wording of this bill.
CHAIR JAMES said she wanted to vote on this bill, either up or
down. She called for a roll-call vote. Representatives James,
Porter, Ivan, and Ogan voted in favor in favor of passing CSHB
267(STA) out of committee. Representatives Green, Robinson, and
Willis voted in opposition. Chair James announced the bill passed
on to the next committee of referral.
SB 92 - AHFC SUBJECT TO EXEC. BUDGET ACT
Number 116
CHAIR JAMES stated the next bill on the agenda was SB 92. She
called for Representative Terry Martin, Chair of the sponsoring
Legislative Budget and Audit committee, to testify on behalf of the
bill.
REPRESENTATIVE TERRY MARTIN, Chair, Legislative Budget and Audit
Committee, stated his major problem with the Alaska Housing and
Finance Committee began about a year ago. He thought it became
apparent at that time, that the legislature may have created a
monster that needed some oversight, especially considering they
had been given so much authority over state funds. He pointed out
that many things in this year's capital budget, that were formerly
under the Department of Community and Regional Affairs, were now
under the Alaska Housing and Finance Corporation. He stated there
was a real constitutional concern as to what degree the legislature
could delegate its authority to appropriate funds to a corporation
and mentioned the legislature had given a tremendous amount of
authority to the AHFC. He stated an example of this authority
without oversight, is the recent report coming from the Institute
of Social and Economic Research. This report indicated that the
state was receiving a return of less than $0.14 out of every dollar
spent on the weatherization program of the AHFC. He stated the
program takes as much as 81 years to receive its investment from
the savings in energy loss. He asked the committee what they
thought the legislature would do if this knowledge became public
information. He said it was going to become public at that point,
because its just one example of why they need oversight. He stated
the problem was that the legislature was blamed from the mistaken
policies of the AHFC, when they had no means of oversight of the
activities of the corporations spending. He argued there was no
accountability for the policies of the AHFC under the current
system. He also pointed out that the concern over tampering with
the AHFCs bonding authority was not real, as the legislature
oversees the activities of other public corporations with bonding
authority as well. He cited the Alaska Industrial Development and
Export Authority, the Permanent Fund corporation, and the Alaska
Railroad as examples. He argued this oversight would not hurt the
bonding authority of the AHFC, but rather may help to keep
credibility for their bonding authority great, by them knowing
that the legislature will protect and insure that the bonding
authority is not misused. He thought this oversight was necessary
to help insure that the funds and assets of the corporation were
not misused. He reiterated that if the legislature was to be held
accountable for the mistaken policies of the AHFC, then it was
necessary that it have some means of oversight over the
corporation. He stated that his aide, John Bitney, and Tom
Williams, legislative aide to Senator Steve Frank, could answer
questions from the committee, regarding the bills effect on the
bonding authority of the AHFC.
CHAIR JAMES stated she would like to take testimony from those on
teleconference before hearing from Mr. Bitney or Mr. Williams.
Number 241
MIKE DAVIS, Representative, Bristol Bay Housing Authority, stated
their housing authority works in approximately 20 communities with
about 400 homes in the Bristol Bay community. He said they worked
extensively with the AHFC to provide homes in communities
throughout bush Alaska. They receive about $1.6 million from the
federal government and matching funds from the AHFC, which allows
them to make improvements to approximately 76 homes in the region.
He argued to put the projects together, in their short construction
season, requires readily available financing. He stated they share
the concerns already expressed, that by allowing the AHFC to fall
under the Executive Budget Act will cause additional delays to
projects. The result will be that less homes will be built. He
thought that by allowing SB 92 to pass, the legislature will be in
the business of micro-managing the corporation, causing additional
bureaucracy and regulations, which he did not think was their
intent. He shared the concerns that this bill will stifle the
corporation from being able to respond to market conditions and
create a situation that will delay projects across the state. He
suggested the legislature craft the language of the bill to allow
them oversight, while still maintaining the ability of the AHFC to
respond to the market conditions of the state.
Number 290
JAN SIEBERTS, Senior Vice President, National Bank of Alaska,
stated there was a group of people who wished to testify, but had
to leave for work. He stated they thought the AHFC was an
important financial asset to this state, and felt they were overall
doing a good job. He argued the housing industry was important to
this state for the creation of jobs and said they estimated $150
million in new home construction last year. He stated that
developing new housing for lower income families was getting more
difficult, because of the increase in cost. He thought that if
they had to go to the legislature for approval with each of their
transactions with the AHFC, the situation would get too complex.
He said they could not accomplish many of their projects without
the assistance of the AHFC and would hate to see the AHFC
micro-managed to the point that these projects would be delayed for
two to three years.
CHAIR JAMES asked if Mike Davis was still on teleconference from
Dillingham and stated Representative Ivan had some questions for
him.
Number 346
REPRESENTATIVE IVAN stated he could understand Mr. Davis comments
about the existing relationship he had with the AHFC. He asked if
Mr. Davis had any recommendations if this bill was too restrictive.
He asked if it would help if there were some type of ceiling on
dollar amounts allowed before requiring legislative oversight.
MR. DAVIS replied the dollar amounts they would need would not be
the same as those of the larger communities. He thought what was
needed was the ability for the corporation to have the flexibility
to respond to market conditions.
REPRESENTATIVE IVAN stated he was looking for some type of dollar
amount ceiling that would exempt them from the effects of
legislative oversight.
MR. DAVIS said he could not give an answer to that question.
Number 388
HEATHER ARNETT, Executive Coordinator, Association of Alaska
Housing Authorities, commented this bill was unclear whether there
would be a requirement of legislative approval on a project by
project basis. If this was the case, she thought there could be
some problems arise. She thought private investors might be more
hesitant to invest in urban and rural Alaska if this legislative
approval were required.
WILLIAM HOWE, Deputy Commissioner, Division of Treasury, Department
of Revenue, stated the department has spent the last week to see
what amendments could be made to SB 92 to make it more functional.
Their suggestions were: 1) To clarify that the AHFC has the ability
to issue bonds and make mortgage loans; 2) the AHFC can continue to
operate its loan programs where no state subsidy exists; and 3)
multi-family loans and projects not to exceed $10 million
individually, which may require grants, tax credits, or utilization
of arbitrage earnings will be permitted. He stated the Department
of Revenue felt with these amendments SB 92 is workable and will
maintain the intent of the sponsors.
Number 491
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN asked what percentage of the AHFCs loan
portfolio does the suggested $10 million cap represent annually.
MR. HOWE thought this cap would represent a small percentage of the
overall portfolio which was in excess of $3 billion. He stated
that last year, the corporation proceeded with about $40 million
worth of multi-family housing projects. He emphasized that this
was a small, but important percentage of the overall portfolio.
CHAIR JAMES called for Tom Williams, Legislative Assistant, Senator
Steve Frank, to give a quick wrap-up on behalf of the bill sponsor.
She asked him to explain to the committee how they were planning to
deal with the concerns raised in the front section of the budget.
Number 507
TOM WILLIAMS, Legislative Assistant, Senator Steve Frank,
reiterated that the bill sponsor had no desire to impede any of the
AHFCs traditional programs, that they have operated well for many
years. He stated their concern was to insure there was a mechanism
to allow the legislature to exercise oversight, should they tend to
divert from their traditional programs. He said it was the intent
to address the corporations flexibility issue in the front section
of the budget to grant the AHFC that general authority. He argued
that by passing the bill without any exemptions, it would bring the
entire operation of the AHFC under the Executive Budget Act, while
providing for a provision in the budget allowing the AHFC to go
forward with its traditional programs, as long as they do not
deviate from their basic plan as presented. Should they divert
from the stated plan, this bill provides for a mechanism for the
legislature to review questionable programs. He stated with regard
to Mr. Howes proposed amendments, he thought that if they could
develop language to exclude certain programs, that certainly
language could be crafted broad enough to allow the AHFC their
needed flexibility. With regard to a specific dollar amount cap,
he thought this cap may need to change annually, as the
corporations needs and programs change. He thought this
flexibility could be achieved better in the budget, as compared to
being written in statute.
CHAIR JAMES asked if the process for working with arbitrage funds
would be interfered with under this bill.
MR. WILLIAMS thought the intent was that they would present a
general plan for how to spend its arbitrage earnings over the next
year, and as long as they do not deviate, there should not be a
problem. Should they deviate from their generally stated plan,
they would then have to come back to the legislature to explain the
need for their change of course. He reiterated that the
Legislative Budget and Audit committee would allow for prompt
legislative response, thus alleviating the concern of missed
opportunities.
Number 552
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN asked if the sponsor would have any problem
with developing language to incorporate Mr. Howes proposed
amendments to SB 92.
MR. WILLIAMS stated the preferred approach would be to not exclude
certain functions of the AHFC. He said they had asked the
Executive Director of the AHFC to help craft the language he would
need to have flexibility to respond to market conditions, so that
it could be put into the budget. He stated he thought there was a
fear the legislature would be trying to micro-manage the AHFC,
which he argued did not make sense.
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN said the goal of the House majority was to try
and limit government interference in business and thought this bill
was providing for government interference in the AHFC. He stated
that without the proposed exclusions, he had some strong
reservations about how this bill was written.
CHAIR JAMES pointed out that the AHFC was a government corporation.
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN agreed they were government, but thought that
overall, they had done a decent job of running their own affairs.
He thought any aggressive loan institution could document through
their history examples of poor decisions.
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER said he shared the concerns expressed by
Representative Green. He stated he was as concerned as everyone
else about the effect of the 5 percent housing loan and the
proposed new office building for the AHFC, but argued this bill was
potential overkill. He was concerned about the potential of
members of the LB&A, during the interim, to allow personal
considerations to interfere with the process. He suggested
following a pattern similar to the oversight over the AIDEA board.
ADJOURNMENT
CHAIR JAMES stated they were out of time and were needed in
session. She adjourned the meeting at 10:23 a.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|