Legislature(1997 - 1998)
04/26/1997 10:10 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 26, 1997
10:10 a.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Jeannette James, Chair
Representative Ethan Berkowitz
Representative Fred Dyson
Representative Kim Elton
Representative Ivan Ivan
Representative Al Vezey
MEMBERS ABSENT
Representative Mark Hodgins
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
HOUSE BILL NO. 47
"An Act relating to authorizing the Department of Corrections to
provide an automated victim notification and prisoner information
system."
- MOVED HB 47 OUT OF COMMITTEE
HOUSE BILL NO. 48
"An Act making a special appropriation for an automated victim
notification system; and providing for an effective date."
- HEARD AND HELD
* HOUSE BILL NO. 264
"An Act providing for a negotiated regulation making process; and
providing for an effective date."
- HEARD AND HELD
SENATE BILL NO. 141
"An Act relating to permits to carry concealed handguns; and
relating to the possession of firearms."
- BILL CANCELLED (NOT YET PASSED BY SENATE)
(* First public hearing)
PREVIOUS ACTION
BILL: HB 47
SHORT TITLE: TELEPHONE VICTIM NOTIFICATION SYSTEM
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) KEMPLEN, Kubina, Croft, Dyson,
Kohring, Brice
JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION
01/13/97 40 (H) PREFILE RELEASED 1/3/97
01/13/97 40 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
01/13/97 40 (H) STATE AFFAIRS, JUDICIARY, FINANCE
03/10/97 617 (H) COSPONSOR(S): KUBINA
03/26/97 862 (H) COSPONSOR(S): CROFT
04/03/97 978 (H) COSPONSOR(S): DYSON
04/24/97 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 102
04/24/97 1331 (H) COSPONSOR(S): KOHRING
04/25/97 1347 (H) COSPONSOR(S): BRICE
04/26/97 (H) STA AT 10:00 AM CAPITOL 102
BILL: HB 48
SHORT TITLE: APPROP: VICTIM NOTIFICATION SYSTEM
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) KEMPLEN, Kubina, Croft, Dyson, Brice
JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION
01/13/97 40 (H) PREFILE RELEASED 1/3/97
01/13/97 40 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
01/13/97 40 (H) STA, JUDICIARY, FINANCE
03/10/97 617 (H) COSPONSOR(S): KUBINA
03/26/97 863 (H) COSPONSOR(S): CROFT
04/03/97 978 (H) COSPONSOR(S): DYSON
04/24/97 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 102
04/24/97 (H) MINUTE(STA)
04/25/97 1348 (H) COSPONSOR(S): BRICE
04/26/97 (H) STA AT 10:00 AM CAPITOL 102
BILL: HB 264
SHORT TITLE: NEGOTIATED REGULATION MAKING
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) JAMES, Berkowitz
JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION
04/25/97 1343 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
04/25/97 1343 (H) STATE AFFAIRS, FINANCE
04/26/97 (H) STA AT 10:00 AM CAPITOL 102
WITNESS REGISTER
LAUREE HUGONIN, Executive Director
Alaska Network on Domestic Violence and Sexual Assault
130 Seward, Room 501
Juneau, Alaska 99801
Telephone: (907) 586-3650
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided testimony in support of HB 47 and 48.
JAYNE ANDREEN, Executive Director
Council on Domestic Violence and Sexual Assault
Department of Public Safety
P.O. Box 111200
Juneau, Alaska 99811-1200
Telephone: (907) 465-4356
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided testimony in support of HB 47 and 48.
CARLA TIMPONE, Lobbyist
Alaska Women's Lobby; and
Co-Chair
AWARE Shelter
211 4th Street, Suite 108
Juneau, Alaska 99801
Telephone: (907) 463-6744
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided testimony in support of HB 47 and 48.
ROBERT COLE, Director
Division of Administrative Services
Department of Corrections
P.O. Box 112000
Juneau, Alaska 99811-2000
Telephone: (907) 465-3342
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided testimony in support of HB 47 and 48.
DEBORAH BEHR, Assistant Attorney General
Legislation and Regulations Section
Department of Law
P.O. Box 110300
Juneau, Alaska 99811-0300
Telephone: (907) 465-3600
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided testimony on HB 47, 48, and 264.
REPRESENTATIVE ALLEN J. KEMPLEN
Alaska State Legislature
State Capitol, Room 112
Juneau, Alaska 99801-1182
Telephone: (907) 465-2435
POSITION STATEMENT: Sponsor of HB 47 and HB 48.
WALTER WILCOX, Legislative Assistant
to Representative Jeannette James
State Capitol, Room 102
Juneau, Alaska 99801-1182
Telephone: (907) 465-3743
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided sponsor statement on HB 264.
ROBERT HUNTINGTON KNIGHT, Jr.
Address not provided
Telephone: not provided
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided testimony on HB 264.
ACTION NARRATIVE
TAPE 97-51, SIDE A
Number 0001
The House State Affairs Standing Committee was called to order by
Chair Jeannette James at 10:10 a.m. Members present at the call to
order were Representatives James, Dyson, Elton, and Vezey. Members
absent were Berkowitz, Hodgins and Ivan. Representative Ivan
arrived at 10:11 a.m.; and Berkowitz at 10:13 a.m.
HB 47 - TELEPHONE VICTIM NOTIFICATION SYSTEM
HB 48 - APPROP: VICTIM NOTIFICATION SYSTEM
The first order of business to come before the House State Affairs
Standing Committee was HB 47, "An Act relating to authorizing the
Department of Corrections to provide an automated victim
notification and prisoner information system," and HB 48, "An Act
making a special appropriation for an automated victim notification
system; and providing for an effective date."
Number 0079
LAUREE HUGONIN, Executive Director, Alaska Network on Domestic
Violence and Sexual Assault, was the first person to testify in
Juneau. Her testimony today was in support of HB 47 and HB 48.
It was especially critical for victims of domestic violence to be
notified as soon as possible when there was a change in an
offender's status, particularly if the offender was being released.
The victim would then have the best chance possible to get herself
to a safe space. The domestic violence and victim protection act
added five responsibilities to the Department of Corrections when
to notify victims. Three were in regards to parole hearings; and
two were in regards to pre-release furloughs. In addition, there
had been difficulty in notifying victims when action had taken
place over the weekend by corrections when the prosecutorial agency
was not at work. Therefore, an automated system would help in all
regards of notifying the victim.
Number 0239
JAYNE ANDREEN, Executive Director, Council on Domestic Violence and
Sexual Assault, Department of Public Safety, was the next person to
testify in Juneau. Her testimony today was in support of HB 47 and
HB 48 for both the council and the Department of Public Safety.
There had been an increased statutory mandate for corrections to
notify victims over the years for safety and peace of mind.
Corrections was having difficulty notifying victims after they
relocated. Therefore, the council had put the word out to the
various victims' agencies to remind them to notify corrections of
their new location. The VINE system was a 24-hour system so
victims could call to determine the status of their offenders
relieving anxiety.
Number 0406
CARLA TIMPONE, Lobbyist, Alaska Women's Lobby; and, Co-Chair, AWARE
Shelter, was the next person to testify in Juneau. Her testimony
today was in support of HB 47 and HB 48 for both the lobby and the
shelter. She explained two cases in Juneau whereby one woman was
notified on the street by a friend that her perpetrator had been
released, and the other woman found out by calling the prison
herself only to learn after the fact that her perpetrator had been
released. In Juneau, she explained, the Department of Corrections
notified the district attorney's office by paper of a change in
status. The district attorney's office then notified the victim.
There were a lot of victims and perpetrators so it was almost
impossible to keep up with the system. An automated system would
be greatly supported.
ROBERT COLE, Director, Division of Administrative Services,
Department of Corrections, was the next person to testify in
Juneau. He was here to answer any questions.
Number 0543
REPRESENTATIVE FRED DYSON stated he was concerned that the VINE
system would not be updated quick enough by corrections. He asked
Mr. Cole how it would work?
Number 0588
MR. COLE replied there was a legitimate concern about the flow of
information between the courts, the prosecutors, and the Department
of Corrections; and then from the Department of Corrections back to
the prosecutors. The answer was automation. At present,
corrections was not able to talk directly to the court system via
E-mail or any other means electronically. The court system was
working on receiving E-mail. Corrections was automated last year
by using funds carried forward the previous year which meant it
could talk to everybody but the courts. In addition, the
Department of Corrections was responsible for facilities such as
the Cook Inlet Pre-Trial in Anchorage where there was a high volume
of status changes which was made more complicated by the fact that
there was no automated communication between corrections and the
courts.
Number 0946
REPRESENTATIVE DYSON asked Mr. Cole if the VINE system would start
to solve the problems of the Department of Corrections?
MR. COLE replied, "Correct."
REPRESENTATIVE DYSON asked Mr. Cole when someone's time was up was
an entry made in a computer or was a piece of paper signed?
MR. COLE replied both. If the victim was registered with the
Department of Corrections, he or she would receive a notification
via paper with the release and disposition status.
Number 1031
REPRESENTATIVE DYSON asked Mr. Cole how he would make sure that the
information on the paper was entered into the computer
concurrently?
MR. COLE replied there were record officers that were charged with
the responsibility of entering the data. An audit was being
conducted right now on the current system to determine if the
necessary information was being contained. The preliminary
information from the auditor indicated that information was missing
rather than inaccurate. The missing information was a result of
the traffic in the high volume institutions. For example, a person
was either moved or released from the courts before corrections was
notified.
Number 1106
REPRESENTATIVE DYSON asked Mr. Cole if he just said that
corrections turned people loose without information from the
courts?
MR. COLE replied, "No."
REPRESENTATIVE DYSON asked Mr. Cole who decided to turn somebody
loose?
MR. COLE replied the supervising superintendent made the final
decision.
REPRESENTATIVE DYSON asked Mr. Cole if the supervising
superintendent signed a piece of paper?
MR. COLE replied he did not know if the superintendent, the time
accounting officer, or the record officer actually signed the piece
of paper.
REPRESENTATIVE DYSON asked Mr. Cole at what point did it trigger
the VINE system? Who did the automatic notification?
MR. COLE replied the VINE system reached into the current computer
system and extracted status change data then automatically notified
the registered victims.
REPRESENTATIVE DYSON asked Mr. Cole who typed the information into
the computer?
MR. COLE replied the record officers.
REPRESENTATIVE DYSON asked Mr. Cole who told the record officers?
MR. COLE replied there was a system in place to examine the paper
records to calculate the time and release date.
REPRESENTATIVE DYSON asked Mr. Cole when would the VINE system be
notified of a release?
MR. COLE replied it would be done at the time the decision was made
to release the prisoner.
REPRESENTATIVE DYSON stated, for clarification, at the same time a
decision was made an entry would be made into the computer.
MR. COLE stated it would have to work something like that or there
would not be a timely update to the VINE system.
REPRESENTATIVE DYSON stated he was concerned that the piece of
paper would sit around for some time before getting to the clerk.
Why not eliminate the paper work by having the decision maker enter
the change in the computer? he asked.
Number 1287
MR. COLE stated next year the department would propose to amend the
previous statutes of notification because the VINE system would not
free the workers from sending a paper notification to the victim as
well. It was not an issue during a transitional year, however. It
would be more efficient to do the whole system electronically.
Number 1317
MR. COLE further stated that the multi-purpose facilities
throughout the state handled many different types of inmates. The
VINE system could help sort out the different types of inmates as
well.
Number 1358
CHAIR JEANNETTE JAMES asked Mr. Cole if he could pull up the status
of an inmate with the current system?
MR. COLE replied, "Yes."
Number 1381
CHAIR JAMES stated, for clarification, that the VINE system would
reach into the current system and update itself.
MR. COLE stated only status changes would be looked at by the VINE
system - transfers, releases, court dates, paroles and probations.
Number 1447
REPRESENTATIVE ETHAN BERKOWITZ stated that the VINE system would
benefit prosecutors as well as the Department of Corrections,
because the victim-witness coordinators were not always in the
loop.
Number 1463
CHAIR JAMES asked if the VINE system would receive information from
other sources?
Number 1475
MR. COLE replied the fiscal note was just for the Department of
Corrections. In order to add the court system and the
prosecutorial system, for example, it would cost more money and
take more time. He reiterated there was no way - presently - to
talk electronically with the court system.
Number 1516
CHAIR JAMES asked Mr. Cole if there was an item in the budget to
get that done this year?
Number 1523
MR. COLE replied it was not in the budget of the Department of
Corrections. Our part was done.
Number 1541
REPRESENTATIVE AL VEZEY commented the department already had the
capability to do this if it had the resources and the will.
Therefore, we should concentrate on putting resources into the
transitional phase to implement the victims' rights legislation
passed last year. We were making a mistake to try to codify how it
should be implemented. In addition, the department would probably
prefer to divert the function of victim notification to the private
sector; it was not part of its core functions and responsibilities.
Number 1674
REPRESENTATIVE DYSON asked Mr. Cole if the VINE system was a
private contractor?
MR. COLE replied, "Yes."
REPRESENTATIVE DYSON asked Mr. Cole if the VINE company would be
managing the data base?
MR. COLE replied the VINE company would be managing the
notification system, not the data base.
REPRESENTATIVE DYSON asked Mr. Cole if the state would purchase the
software?
MR. COLE replied and management.
REPRESENTATIVE DYSON asked Mr. Cole if the VINE company would be
doing a portion of the work after being set up with the state
system?
MR. COLE replied, "Yes."
Number 1704
CHAIR JAMES stated the bill called for a request for proposal (RFP)
when the VINE Company was the only one that provided this type of
service.
Number 1764
REPRESENTATIVE DYSON agreed that the Department of Corrections did
not need legislation to enter into a contract to expand its system
to notify victims. However, money was necessary. He considered it
one of the higher priorities this session.
Number 1789
CHAIR JAMES asked Mr. Cole to address the issue of liability due to
errors.
MR. COLE replied corrections would be liable if the information was
not entered timely or correctly. The courts would be liable if it
did not notify corrections of a status change in a timely fashion.
According to an audit of the victim notification system, 99.56
percent of all victims were notified timely.
Number 1846
CHAIR JAMES asked Mr. Cole if the estimated revenues shown in the
new fiscal note for HB 47 would come through the VINE system?
Number 1874
MR. COLE replied the jail link component of the VINE system was a
1-900 phone number to inquire about the status of an inmate.
Presently, the department received about 600 calls like that per
day. Therefore, $1.25 per phone call equaled about $250,000. The
department did not know if the volume would remain at 600 after
imposing a charge, however. The department believed it would cost
about $93,000 per year to continue the VINE system which could be
recouped through the jail link component and program receipts.
Number 1939
CHAIR JAMES asked Mr. Cole about the federal funds available.
Number 1944
MR. COLE replied he knew there had been VINE applications
throughout the country financed by federal grants. There were
federal grant pockets used for the VINE system. The state of
Alaska should be just as eligible as any other entity in the
country. Existing grant funds could be gone and used already this
year. Therefore, we should attempt to use the funds in the new
federal fiscal year.
Number 1984
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ announced he had an amendment to HB 48 to
reflect the new fiscal note.
CHAIR JAMES explained the committee would deal with HB 47 first to
determine if we need HB 48.
Number 2006
REPRESENTATIVE DYSON stated on the contrary we should not do
anything with HB 47 because the department did not need legal
authority to do this.
CHAIR JAMES replied that was the type of discussion we needed to
have now.
CHAIR JAMES asked Mr. Cole if he would be the party primarily
involved in implementing the VINE system?
MR. COLE replied, "Yes."
CHAIR JAMES asked Mr. Cole, if he had the money, did he already
have the authority to do what HB 47 said?
MR. COLE replied he did have the authority. It was important for
the legislature to make a statement and this was not a bad
statement to make. It said as a matter of policy that the
legislature was concerned about victims' rights.
Number 2074
REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY asked Mr. Cole, if the department received an
appropriation to implement a victim notification system, would it
be the intent of the department to carry it out?
Number 2094
MR. COLE replied, "Yes." We would take it to heart and try to get
it done.
Number 2101
CHAIR JAMES asked Mr. Cole, if the system was expanded to connect
to the courts; for example, who would be the authorizing agency -
the courts, Department of Law, or Department of Public Safety?
Number 2131
MR. COLE replied there was a Criminal Justice Information System
Advisory Board that worked on the information problems that existed
between all of the law enforcement and judicial agencies.
Therefore, all the entities would be working together to try to
make it work.
Number 2127
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ moved to adopt Amendment 1. There was no
objection, Amendment 1 was so adopted.
Number 2185
REPRESENTATIVE DYSON asked Chair James, if given the time left in
the session, would it be possible to get the money to the
conference committee in the next 7 to 10 days for HB 47? He did
not want the appropriation aspect of the bill delayed at all.
Number 2214
CHAIR JAMES replied the House State Affairs Standing Committee had
thoroughly reviewed the bills. She would like that the next
committee of referral to look at both bills as well. Or, if the
committee members wished we could just move HB 47 to the next
committee of referral.
Number 2251
REPRESENTATIVE DYSON moved that HB 47; and HB 48, as amended, move
from the committee with individual recommendations and the attached
fiscal note(s).
CHAIR JAMES objected. The fiscal note was for HB 47, not HB 48.
House Bill 47 with a fiscal note would have the same effect as HB
48 as an appropriation bill.
Number 2293
DEBORAH BEHR, Assistant Attorney General, Legislation and
Regulations Section, Department of Law, was the next person to
testify in Juneau. A fiscal note attached to a bill would go in
the back of the budget and it could be reduced accordingly and sent
to the free conference committee. A separate appropriation would
not go to the free conference committee and it would not
necessarily be lowered.
Number 2312
CHAIR JAMES stated she suspected a separate appropriation would
mean that it would die. Her recommendation would be to pass HB 47
with a fiscal note.
Number 2329
REPRESENTATIVE KIM ELTON stated HB 47 with a fiscal note would
require each department and municipality to cooperate with the
Department of Corrections.
Number 2350
REPRESENTATIVE DYSON withdrew his motion.
Number 2359
REPRESENTATIVE DYSON moved that HB 47 move from the committee with
individual recommendations and the attached fiscal note(s).
CHAIR JAMES asked Representative Allen J. Kemplen, sponsor of the
bill, if he had any objection?
REPRESENTATIVE ALLEN J. KEMPLEN, Alaska State Legislature, replied,
"No."
CHAIR JAMES asked if there was any objection to the motion.
Hearing no objection, HB 47 was so moved from the House State
Affairs Standing Committee.
HB 264 - NEGOTIATED REGULATION MAKING
The next order of business to come before the House State Affairs
Standing Committee was HB 264, "An Act providing for a negotiated
regulation making process; and providing for an effective date."
Number 2425
WALTER WILCOX, Legislative Assistant to Representative Jeannette
James, explained HB 264 took the request of citizens for a change
in the regulation making process seriously. Currently, the
regulations were written first then taken to the public.
TAPE 97-51, SIDE B
Number 0001
MR. WILCOX explained a negotiated regulation system (neg/reg) was
being used by the federal government, Montana and Nebraska. They
found it to be cheaper because it eliminated litigation at the end
of the process; the people had their say up front. The bill
outlined a way to convene a committee by the agency and interested
parties, as-well-as, a mediator to create regulations that
everybody could live with. The package of information provided to
the committee members included the following: sponsor statement,
negotiated regulation/rule making, Alaska regulation adoption
process, Montana's neg/reg act, Nebraska's neg/reg act, the neg/reg
U.S. code, and the neg/reg Nebraska administrative code. He
further announced Bob Knight was in the audience today as an expert
witness. He had worked with the neg/reg process at the federal
level.
Number 0067
REPRESENTATIVE DYSON asked Mr. Wilcox how the Administration had
responded to this and did the environmental lobby committee know
what was being done?
Number 0086
MR. WILCOX replied the Administration appeared to be heading in the
same direction as the bill. Deborah Behr, Department of Law, was
here to testify as well.
Number 0128
REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY wondered how the committee managed to hear the
bill today when it was just read across the floor of the House of
Representatives.
MR. WILCOX replied because we were good.
Number 0138
CHAIR JAMES explained her quest in the legislature had been to try
to simplify the regulatory process. The bill was a good answer
even though it cost more up front. She asked the House State
Affairs Standing Committee members to give this bill a thorough
review. The bill would probably not be moved out of the committee
this year.
Number 0184
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ explained The Yukon Pacific Corporation
brought everybody on board up front including the environmental
organizations which reduced contentiousness that normally
accompanied the permitting process. He asked Chair James if that
was what she was aiming for?
Number 0211
CHAIR JAMES replied, "Correct." Generally people did not like
surprises.
Number 0247
DEBORAH BEHR, Assistant Attorney General, Legislation and
Regulations Section, Department of Law, was the next person to
testify in Juneau. She had not been able to call all of the
agencies because she just got the bill yesterday at 2:30 p.m. The
Administration had been very interested in neg/reg. Three
departments had come to her already to explore neg/reg over the
summer - Department of Revenue (DOR), Department of Environmental
Conservation (DEC), and Department of Natural Resources (DNR).
MS. BEHR explained that the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) had
not been updated since the 1980's. Work shops were appropriate and
some agencies were starting to conduct work shops on the larger
regulation projects. She cited the Department of Environmental
Conservation held work shops on the water quality regulations.
MS. BEHR stated she liked the model in the bill because it was an
up-front process not raising a lot of constitutional problems. It
set up a board to help plan for the regulation process so that
everybody would have an opportunity for comment.
MS. BEHR explained this summer we would need to look at adjusting
the bill for the boards and commissions. She did not know how to
negotiate with a board or commission. She was concerned about the
boards that had to act quickly such as the Board of Fisheries. She
was concerned about the open records provision because most
industries did not mind being candid with an agency but they did
not want their records to be public. She stated the bill had many
layers and suggested cutting a few to save money. She cited the
provision for a salary to sit on the board.
(THE TESTIMONY OF MS. BEHR IS NOT COMPLETE DUE TO THE
TELECONFERENCE NETWORK BEING SHUT OFF. SHE WAS ASKED TO RESTATE
HER CONCERNS LATER IN THE HEARING)
Number 0628
REPRESENTATIVE ELTON asked Ms. Behr to comment on the provision of
no judicial review. What problems would it solve or could occur
without a judicial review?
Number 0648
MS. BEHR replied the decision of the commissioner was non-
reviewable. She did not have a legal problem with it. The
regulation as a result of a decision was subject to a legal
challenge, however, because it was under existing provisions in law
that were not being repealed.
Number 0669
REPRESENTATIVE ELTON referred Ms. Behr to the language on page 9,
line 10 and wondered about the requirement before rather than after
and the perception of the public process that went along with it.
Number 0700
MS. BEHR stated a regulator would have to be careful to not give
the appearance of special deals with the regulated industry while
the regulation was out for public comment.
Number 0719
REPRESENTATIVE ELTON stated he liked the idea of bringing people to
the table to try to work towards the middle. He wondered if the
petition process would create a heavy work load.
Number 0754
MS. BEHR stated there was an existing petition process in the
current APA. The bill was asking for a different type of petition;
a petition to call for a review committee. She was not sure of the
impact. The petition process for the APA had not caused a lot of
problems.
Number 0795
CHAIR JAMES explained there were two triggers to regulation
writing: new legislation or a rewrite of existing regulations. A
petition to request the use of neg/reg would come when there was
controversy over new legislation for example. An agency would also
choose that process to get the concerns out of the way. In the
case of existing regulations that needed to be rewritten someone
would want the neg/reg process because too often regs were written
that did not work in the field.
Number 0882
REPRESENTATIVE ELTON asked Ms. Behr if there should be a provision
to keep people from petitioning for a regulation change if there
were administrative appeals that had yet to be exhausted? He cited
the Permanent Fund Dividend (PFD) process as an example.
Number 0914
MS. BEHR stated someone should not be able to file one petition
after another either.
Number 0924
REPRESENTATIVE DYSON asked Ms. Behr if she had been in contact with
Nebraska or Montana?
MS. BEHR replied, "Not yet."
Number 0938
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ stated this was clearly the product of
earlier industrial/organizational theorists. He asked Mr. Wilcox
what sort of theorists or scholars had looked into this?
Number 0959
MR. WILCOX replied in the bill package there was a document
summarizing the responses of the individuals in the various states
on how it worked.
Number 1010
MR. WILCOX explained that neg/reg would probably only be used less
than six times per year according to Ms. Behr. We were looking at
very expensive or very controversial types of regulations. The
example of the PFD by Representative Elton would not apply because
the commissioner would summarily dismiss it.
Number 1036
CHAIR JAMES added it would also require more than one person.
Number 1042
REPRESENTATIVE ELTON stated what was important to him was not
necessarily important to the commissioner. He asked Mr. Wilcox
what discretion an agency had to reject a petition?
Number 1060
MR. WILCOX replied a convener was appointed by the agency who did
background research on the issue, impact, and cost. The convener
then reported back to the commissioner with the recommendation to
either form a committee or not.
Number 1077
REPRESENTATIVE ELTON stated, therefore, it might not be an issue of
magnitude but of cost.
Number 1103
MR. WILCOX stated somebody would have to address the issue. If it
had gotten to the point of a petition the department would have
investigated it already.
Number 1143
MS. BEHR stated she could see the neg/reg process being used by
more than resource agencies. There had been very controversial day
care regulations addressed in the past.
Number 1181
CHAIR JAMES explained she got the idea for neg/reg when she was
working with the assisted living regulations. The Division of
Family and Youth Services included a consumer and a day care
provider when drafting the regulations. The Department of
Transportation and Public Facilities worked with the trucking
industry on trucking regulations. The Department of Revenue worked
with the industry on oil tax regulations.
Number 1204
MS. BEHR stated some could be done without the bill.
CHAIR JAMES replied, "You're right." An outline of how it would
work was needed, however.
Number 1293
ROBERT HUNTINGTON KNIGHT, Jr. was the next person to testify in
Juneau. He explained he was involved with setting up the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) as a member of the founding
task force. He worked for the first two administrators as an aide,
and was at the Department of Interior in water pollution before the
EPA. The idea was to begin to control and regulate the discharges
to improve the quality of the environment throughout the nation.
No one was sure how to do it except through the regulatory process
either in a hostile fashion or by talking to the polluters. We
assumed good faith in the polluter and created a committee setting
where there was room for exchanges of views. Work sessions were
held as well to prevent the leakage of proprietary secrets.
MR. KNIGHT, Jr. further stated that he did not see anything in HB
264 to prohibit or restrain boards and commissions from making
emergency regulations. If the emergency became a long problem then
the neg/reg would be a good route to follow but it might not be
necessary.
MR. KNIGHT, Jr. further stated the federal agencies found neg/reg
to be a very exciting process because input at a formative stage
allowed for the identification of issues that might not have
appeared until a regulation was promulgated. It sped up the
process, cut costs, and reduced litigation.
Number 1657
CHAIR JAMES asked Mr. Knight, Jr. how long had Montana and Nebraska
used neg/reg?
MR. KNIGHT, Jr. replied he did not know about Montana and Nebraska.
The federal government started using this type of process in the
1960's.
MR. WILCOX explained Montana started in 1993, Nebraska in 1994, and
the federal government in 1990.
Number 1681
MR. KNIGHT, Jr. stated the process had been around a long time.
The idea that a statue was needed was new.
Number 1690
CHAIR JAMES explained she was turned on to the idea of neg/reg
because some agencies were using it while other were not.
Something was needed in statute so that the option was considered.
Number 1712
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ wondered if anyone opposed neg/reg. He
could not think of a reason why.
Number 1721
MR. KNIGHT, Jr. stated some opposed it because there was the
potential to add another layer of bureaucracy that could impede the
regulatory decision making process.
Number 1801
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ explained he characterized the situation
where the interested parties were brought in prior to the
development of any conflict.
MR. KNIGHT, Jr. stated there could already be conflict. He cited,
in regards to oil spills, prior to the task force the agencies were
blaming each other. It took only four months to get an interagency
agreement between the players. However, 20 years later the
agencies spent 10 hours discussing who was in charge after the
Exxon Valdez oil spill. The agreements had to be revisited.
Number 1942
REPRESENTATIVE ELTON explained, when he first looked at this issue,
cost and time were of concern to him because both were frustrating
to agencies. However, upon review, neg/reg would save on cost and
time because it would occur prior to the current public process.
He asked Mr. Knight, Jr. if his notion was correct?
Number 2020
MR. KNIGHT, Jr. replied, "Yes." It was a public meeting, not a
private meeting, for anyone interested. It was a way to get the
parties together to talk things out ahead of time. The savings was
not necessarily in the process itself; but, in time, effort,
litigation, and cooperation.
MR. WILCOX asked that Ms. Behr repeat her testimony for the record.
Number 2161
MS. BEHR reiterated she had not been able to talk to all of the
agencies because she just got the bill yesterday afternoon. The
agencies that had expressed an interest in neg/reg were DEC, DOR
and DNR. The DEC participated in the process now with its water
quality work shops which were successful. She liked the bill
because it called for a process before the start of the regulatory
process, therefore, it did not raise constitutional problems. In
addition, it was an advisory process so the commissioner was not
bound to the recommendation. The Department of Law would be
willing to work this summer on the issues.
MS. BEHR explained she was concerned about the commissions and
boards and how to negotiate with one member when that member did
not speak for the whole. She was concerned about the Board of
Fisheries and the Board of Game and their excelerated time lines.
They might need to be exempted, for example. She was concerned
about open records. Private businesses were reluctant to give
proprietor records to the state for fear of it becoming a public
document. She was concerned about providing a salary for the
members. She was concerned about the 30 day time frame to set up
a committee being too long. She was concerned about ethics. She
was concerned about the definition of unanimous consent.
TAPE 97-52, SIDE A
Number 0001
MS. BEHR further stated she was concerned about immunity. More
would probably be willing to service if there was some kind of
immunity. She was concerned about the agencies receiving gifts to
set up the committee. She would prefer that it went to the state
rather than the committee itself to remove any appearance of
influence.
Number 0085
CHAIR JAMES announced she would like to hear HB 264 one more time
before the end of session in order to hear from the Administration
and industry members.
ADJOURNMENT
Number 0118
CHAIR JAMES adjourned the House State Affairs Standing Committee
meeting at 11:45 a.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|