Legislature(2021 - 2022)ADAMS 519
02/02/2022 01:30 PM House FINANCE
Note: the audio ![]()
and video ![]()
recordings are distinct records and are obtained from different sources. As such there may be key differences between the two. The audio recordings are captured by our records offices as the official record of the meeting and will have more accurate timestamps. Use the icons to switch between them.
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB187 | |
| HB64 | |
| HB30 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | HB 30 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | HB 64 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | HB 187 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
HOUSE BILL NO. 187
"An Act relating to the elimination or modification of
state agency publications that are outdated,
duplicative, or excessive or that could be improved or
consolidated with other publications or exclusively
delivered electronically; and providing for an
effective date."
1:37:31 PM
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES KAUFMAN, SPONSOR, introduced himself.
He thanked the committee for hearing his bill. He
characterized HB 187 as a simplification bill that
created cost efficiencies. He read from the sponsor
statement:
HB 187 in its current form, is intended to conserve
resources expended in the production, processing,
transportation, distribution storage and disposal of
excess state agency publications.
Representative Kaufman explained that the bill required
state agencies to compile a list of publications produced
each year and look for opportunities to reduce or eliminate
them. His goal was to prevent the state from doing the same
things over and over if unnecessary.
1:39:50 PM
MATTHEW HARVEY, STAFF, REPRESENTATIVE KAUFMAN, reviewed the
sectional analysis. He referred to the sectional analysis
which he read:
Section 1:
Amends AS 37.07.020 to add a requirement for the
governor to submit legislation to remove or amend
statutory requirements for publications deemed to be
outdated, duplicative or excessive, or that could be
consolidated with other publications, and which of
those could be delivered in electronic form as
directed in Section 2.
Section 2:
Repeals and reenacts AS 44.99.220 requiring state
agencies to use a list of publications, which is
already statutorily required to be developed, to
identify and highlight publications deemed to be
outdated, duplicative or excessive, or that could be
consolidated with other publications, or which could
be delivered in electronic form.
This list of publications, including highlighted
publications, is required to be electronically
submitted to the governor and both bodies of the
legislature.
Section 3:
Provides for an immediate effective date.
Co-Chair Foster asked if members had any questions. He
commented that choosing which publications were worthy of
publication was subjective. He offered that some
publications were widely read, and some were read by a
limited number of readers. He wondered how the decisions
would be made.
Representative Kaufman answered that the bill created a
feedback loop; after the assessment was made and
legislation was introduced it was up to the legislative
process to determine whether the publications were viable
or not. There would be an opportunity to hear testimony
regarding the publications through the public process.
1:43:01 PM
Representative Edgmon thought similar legislation had
already been passed. He recalled discussions regarding
balancing the needs to save money and resources and
concluding that digital versions were just as useful as
hardcopy. He generally approved of the bill and thought it
was well intended. However, he noted that there had been
some complications in rural Alaska because of internet
connections. He believed that some publications were very
important and rural residents were accustomed to receiving
the information via mail.
Co-Chair Foster indicated that Representative Rasmussen was
online.
Representative Kaufman responded that he considered the
issue, which was why the bill did not authorize the
executive branch to eliminate the publications. He felt
that the bill included a "change management piece" that
acted as a check via the legislative process to determine
if eliminating a paper publication would unduly affect its
readers.
1:45:16 PM
Representative Wool recalled that Representative Edgmon was
referring to a bill introduced by Representative Kreiss-
Tomkins. He recollected the discussions concerning the
benefits and drawbacks of electronic versus hard copies.
Although he agreed with the idea of saving paper and
resources, he was inclined to read hard copies of reports
he received versus being informed that the information was
available online. He determined that if it required active
investigation to find a report, he might not seek the
information out. He deemed that there was a passive versus
active component to consider. He believed that printed
publications still had value. He agreed that there were
likely too many publications. He favored striking a balance
between publications in various forms.
1:47:07 PM
Representative Carpenter thought that the value of the bill
was not the paper that would be saved, it was the habit
changes within the various agencies that would challenge
established thinking on how to do things more efficiently.
He thought the bill helped to move people towards the
digital age of the younger generation and changed
organizational thinking regarding how to do things better
and more efficiently as a new habit.
1:48:34 PM
Co-Chair Foster commented that the local paper in Nome was
very popular and heavily relied on. He observed that the
state was putting less announcements in newspapers as a
cost saving measures. He asked if any provisions in HB 187
affected announcements placed in the classified sections.
Representative Kaufman responded in the negative. He
recounted that the intent of the bill focused on
publications within the executive branch and created an
opportunity to review whether a publication had value.
Representative LeBon asked if the sponsor had an opinion
about the potential savings resulting from the bill.
1:51:46 PM
Mr. Harvey answered that Representative Kreiss-Tompkins had
a similar bill requiring that all reports were digitally
delivered. He indicated that he obtained the savings
information from the work done for Representative Kreiss-
Tompkins' bill. He relayed that the state had 189 statutes
that required reports and the savings for printing was
estimated at over $585,000. He qualified that since HB 187
was not a blanket mandate to deliver all publications
electronically, he anticipated less cost savings.
Representative LeBon commented that in the banking business
financial statement delivery was evolving into all digital
formats.
1:52:59 PM
Representative Josephson relayed his understanding of the
bill and thought that it put the legislature on the
defensive. He asked whether the legislature would have to
step up to the plate and decide on publications for each
of the reports the executive branch identified for
elimination or modification.
Representative Kaufman replied that the governors bill had
to be moved through the legislative process by the
legislature. He did not perceive it as a defensive position
since it would be moved through the legislative process by
the will of the legislature. However, he thought that would
be the benefit of HB 187 - to determine what publications
were being valued through debate and discussions.
Representative Josephson cited a document in members files
[Research Brief State Agency Reports Required by Alaska
Statute LRS Report 15.248 (copy on file)]. He pointed to
the listed Annual Report on Mining Activity in the State
and deduced that it would warrant a tremendous amount of
interest and would likely be safeguarded. Representative
Kaufman answered in the affirmative. He reminded
Representative Josephson that the purpose was not to get
rid of things it was to access and avoid repetitive ways
of doing things. He hypothesized that the mining report may
be duplicative and all the costs of not only publication,
but of distribution and disposal had to be factored in. He
concluded that bill ensured that the publications were
delivering value.
1:56:25 PM
Representative Thompson thought the bill was a great idea.
He guessed that the 2015 research would currently include
many more mandated reports. He relayed his experience
attempting to determine the number of reports required by
school districts in a cost saving exercise. He discovered
that sometimes the reports went into a file and were not
used and wondered what the additional savings in personnel
costs could be achieved. Representative Kaufman emphasized
the lack of job satisfaction in producing something that
was not valued. He determined that loss of job satisfaction
had a cost as well as other value added work the employee
could perform instead. The savings could be much deeper
than the production costs.
Co-Chair Foster relayed that there was a fiscal note
associated with the bill.
1:58:57 PM
NEIL STEININGER, DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET,
OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR, relayed that the Office of the
Governor fiscal note (FN2 (GOV) was zero. He explained that
it was determined that the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) would accommodate the additional workload of
compiling a list of publications with existing resources.
Representative Kaufman commented that the bill was better
than a zero fiscal note by actually creating savings.
Representative Wool asked if the bill was about not
printing reports or not writing the reports at all. He
presented a scenario where he was reminded the committee
requested a report in the previous year and they had
forgotten about it. He asked whether they were reducing
report requirements or only the printing of them.
Representative Kaufman responded that the bill encompassed
the total production of reports and may result in the
elimination of some reports. He believed that in a large
and complex organization it was usually easy to find
efficiencies if mechanisms were created to start the
discussion. He reviewed the total existence of a report;
from the conceptualization, compiling information, writing,
transmission, or delivery that included transportation
emissions to disposal with possible landfill issues, etc.
He noted the layers and layers of benefits from halting
doing something unnecessary. The discussions in the review
cycle would include all publishing options and all the
ramifications. Representative Wool wondered how simple it
would be to eliminate the statute requiring a report. He
noted the fiscal note was zero. He wondered if there was a
fiscal aspect or why the finance committee was referred the
bill. Representative Kaufman responded that the fiscal note
was zero but was likely a savings bill. He believed that
agencies knew the number of reports that were required and
their intrinsic value and therefore the list was not a
burden. He guessed that the referral was an artifact but
he viewed it as an opportunity to discuss ideas such as
this.
Co-Chair Foster indicated he would set the bill aside and
thanked the bill sponsor.