Legislature(2017 - 2018)GRUENBERG 120
04/04/2017 03:00 PM House STATE AFFAIRS
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 | |
| HB158 | |
| HB190 | |
| HB163 | |
| HJR3 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | HB 190 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 163 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| *+ | HB 158 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | HB 165 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| *+ | HJR 3 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
HB 190-REGULATION ADOPTION/ORAL COMMENT
3:20:46 PM
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS announced that the next order of business
would be HOUSE BILL NO. 190, "An Act relating to the
presentation of oral comments on the proposed adoption,
amendment, or repeal of regulations."
3:21:57 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KNOPP, after ascertaining the correct document
for the motion, moved to adopt the proposed committee substitute
(CS) for HB 190, Version 30-LS0732\J, Bannister, 3/31/17, as the
working document. There being no objection, Version J was
before the committee.
3:22:38 PM
JULIE MORRIS, Staff, Representative Dave Talerico, Alaska State
Legislature, on behalf of Representative Talerico, prime sponsor
of HB 190, reviewed the document included in the committee
packet entitled "Explanation of Changes to HB 190 Version A to
Version J," which read as follows [original punctuation
provided]:
Sec. 1 AS 44.62.190(a)(1) deletes newspaper from a
requirement of publication., and includes the Internet
address of the state Agency's Internet website.
Sec. 2 AS 44.62.200 (d) deletes the newspaper
requirement.
Sec. 3 AS 44.62.210(a) deleted language (when
requested by the person or the person's authorized
representative).
Sec. 4 AS 44.62.245 (b)(2) amends post to the agency's
Internet website and deletes requirement in newspaper
of general circulation.
Sec. AS.21.123 (b) repealed the oral requirement in
this statute since it will be covered now in Section
3.
Sec. 6 Applicability applies to regulations amended,
adoption [sic] or repealed on or after effective date.
3:25:19 PM
REPRESENTATIVE BIRCH referred to the fiscal note and asked what
savings would be realized by eliminating the requirement for
publishing [a proposed action to adopt, amend, or repeal a
regulation] in a newspaper.
MS. MORRIS explained that the fiscal note, included in the
committee packet, was drafted for Version A. She stated that
the publication requirements, both in newspaper and trade and
industry publications, and any potential savings under Version J
are still in discussion.
3:26:21 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KNOPP asked, "At whose request are we removing
the newspaper component?"
MS. MORRIS responded that the discussion of the cost of
publications occurred during meetings with "the chairman and his
staff," the Department of Law (DOL), and the Department of
Commerce, Community, and Economic Development (DCCED). She
stated that the public can post written comments to the website
for online public notices; however, depending on the agency,
oral testimony is not always allowed.
REPRESENTATIVE KNOPP commented that he is not as technology
("tech") savvy as some people and still relies on the newspaper
to be alerted to proposed regulation changes. He added that he
consults the website after seeing notice in the newspaper. He
stated that he has an issue with excluding newspaper publication
[of proposed regulation changes].
3:27:55 PM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON asked if there has been consideration for
a consistent standard throughout the [Alaska Administrative]
Code (AAC) for notification procedures and information sharing.
MS. MORRIS answered that in the proposed legislation, the
consideration has been for allowing the public the opportunity
to give oral comment. She maintained that the elimination of a
newspaper publication for public notification is secondary. She
conceded that many people still do rely on newspapers for
information instead of electronic devices. She emphasized that
there is a need to "get the word out" on how regulations are
being amended and changed. She asserted that she does not want
to create more bureaucracy but wants to streamline the process
and allow oral testimony. She maintained that doing so would
neither slow the process down nor cost more money.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON agreed that there are many people relying
on the newspaper for notices. She expressed a need for bridging
the gap between those individuals and tech savvy people by
making the information available both in newspapers and online.
She suggested that the requirement for newspaper publication be
retained and the language for the information technology (IT)
piece be added to the statute until the state attains
consistency regarding its public notices. She lamented that
currently there is no standardization in that regard.
3:32:23 PM
REPRESENTATIVE WOOL stated that in Version A, oral testimony
would have been allowed in addition to written testimony. He
added that oral testimony is less formal than written testimony
and undocumented. He asked if it was the intent of the original
version of HB 190 to allow the less formal testimony.
3:33:06 PM
REPRESENTATIVE DAVE TALERICO, Alaska State Legislature, prime
sponsor of HB 190, responded, "That was the intention." He
referred to the 129 boards and commissions in Alaska to point
out that not all of them adopt, amend, or repeal regulations.
He gave two examples of groups which make recommendations but
have no regulatory authority: the Alaska Minerals Commission
(AMC) and the Alaska Safety Advisory Council (ASAC). He offered
that the Alaska Board of Architects and Engineers is one board
that does have regulatory authority. He concluded that under
the proposed legislation, oral testimony would be available for
those boards and commissions that do have regulatory authority,
but not for those that do not.
REPRESENTATIVE WOOL asked if under Version J, a specialist, such
as a geologist or an optometrist, who would be directly impacted
by the proposed regulatory change, would be notified of it or
would have to "find it."
REPRESENTATIVE TALERICO answered, "That's probably the big
question." He said that the changes in Version J are up for
discussion. He expressed his belief that "our future is
probably more electronic"; the discussion on procedures for
notification is an important one going forward; and he conceded
that many older people rely on the newspaper and many young
people rely on electronic devices.
REPRESENTATIVE WOOL mentioned that he reads online newspapers
and is more apt to do that than visiting board websites or the
Alaska Online Public Notice System. He offered his
understanding that similar legislation was proposed by the
committee chair allowing state agencies to put publications
online rather than producing paper copies. He offered that he
is more likely to read something that comes to his mailbox than
to navigate to a website to obtain information.
3:38:26 PM
SUSAN POLLARD, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Statewide
Section Supervisor, Legislation & Regulations Section, Civil
Division (Juneau), Department of Law (DOL), testified that one
of her job duties is to advise agencies on how to comply with
the administrative procedures while proceeding through the steps
for adopting regulations. She stated that the Alaska Online
Public Notice System is one of the available tools for receiving
notice of state agency actions. She asserted that the system
was not maintained by DOL but by the Office of the Lieutenant
Governor (OLG). She mentioned that the notice of proposed
regulation change or public hearing by an agency, board, or
commission must be posted on the system.
REPRESENTATIVE BIRCH asked what the cost differential was
between a published advertisement in a newspaper and an online
advertisement.
3:40:30 PM
SARA CHAMBERS, Operations Manager, Division of Corporations,
Business, and Professional Licensing (CBPL), Department of
Commerce, Community & Economic Development (DCCED), responded
that CBPL represents 21 boards and commissions and 22 licensing
programs; all 43 entities have regulatory authority. She
explained that CBPL posts proposed regulation changes on the
Alaska Online Public Notice System; it sends notices to anyone
on the interested parties list; and it sends notices to
licensees who will be impacted by a regulation change, such as
through a fee increase or an increase in the cost of continuing
education. She added that CBPL always publishes notice in the
newspaper. By statute it must be a newspaper with major
circulation; therefore, CBPL chooses to publish in the largest
newspaper in the state. She said that the cost of publishing a
newspaper notice is typically a couple hundred dollars per
notice; one project may require as many as four notices
depending on the number of changes to the project and
supplemental notices. She maintained that the potential savings
to the licensees through the elimination of the requirement for
a hard copy publication of notice - including a trade or
industry publication notice - would be substantial. She added
that it is the licensees who support CBPL; the division does not
receive any state general funds (GF).
3:42:52 PM
REPRESENTATIVE BIRCH asked if there is any legal reason for
advertising in print media, or if online notification alone
would be allowed.
MS. POLLARD answered that the notice of proposed regulation
changes is designed to reach interested parties and any person
who potentially could be affected by the regulatory action. She
stated that when the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) was
adopted [in 1959], newspapers were the best method of providing
general notice. She offered that there is probably no legal
requirement for notification in print media, but she suggested
that the question is: What is the best way to reach a diverse
group? She said that the court has looked at whether a
newspaper meets that standard, and she added that her agency
could consider that further.
3:44:15 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KNOPP mentioned that when he served at the
municipal level, the assembly had to give notice of meeting
agendas. He maintained that there was only one newspaper with
general circulation; therefore, the rates were "out of control."
He stated that to control cost, the assembly responded by giving
as notice of meetings the date, time, and reference to a
website. This reduced the advertisement from a half page down
to a couple columns. He suggested that his concern is that the
proposed regulation change be "noticed"; the content of the
change is not necessary in the notification; and he can visit a
website for the "body" of the proposed change. He reiterated
that he avoids searching the internet unless it is a necessity.
He stated that his concern is that electronic media would be the
sole source of notice. He asked if the state has record of the
number of times that the Alaska Online Public Notice System has
been accessed and if there was any measure of the effectiveness
of the system.
MS. POLLARD replied that she did not know.
3:46:57 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX asked if notices of proposed regulation
changes are published in the classified section of a trade or
industry publication. She suggested that no one would look in
the classified section for them.
MS. CHAMBERS responded that notifications are published in the
legal notices section. In response to Representative Knopp, she
said that the notifications are condensed to the extent allowed
by statute, the drafting manual, and the APA.
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX suggested that professionals who are
looking for notification in the legal notices section [of a
trade or industry publication] would look online, if they knew
that was where notice would be published.
MS. CHAMBERS answered that she has discovered that when people
are given the opportunity to select the method of notification -
paper notification or email notification - more and more they
are opting for email. She added that CBPL still publishes
notification in newspapers, because it is required in statute.
She concluded that CBPL posts notification to the Alaska Online
Public Notice System, publishes it in the newspaper, posts it to
its website, and continues to "push out" notification to
licensees when requested.
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX suggested the possibility of the proposed
legislation only requiring that public notice [of a proposed
regulation change] be posted online, and only sending it out
through email or mail to people asking to be informed.
MS. CHAMBERS responded that the impact of online-only
notification to CBPL would be savings in time and cost. She
mentioned that she did not know what the impact would be to the
public.
3:50:52 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX requested that someone testify on the
impact to the public of her suggested method of notification.
MS. POLLARD replied that each agency, including each board and
commission, would need to "weigh in" on how that would affect
its interested parties. She added that DOL cannot speak for all
executive branch departments; the DOL would assist the agencies
to comply with whatever the legislature decides is the mandatory
notice.
MS. CHAMBER suggested that newspaper publishers may be able to
give the results of studies that they have done on the
readership of legal notices.
3:52:06 PM
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS asked if the savings realized by
eliminating the publication requirement would be savings to
licensees who currently underwrite the cost of notification
advertising through their license fees.
MS. CHAMBERS responded that for her agency, that is true, but it
is not necessarily true for other agencies with other funding
mechanisms. She added that CBPL does represent a large portion
of the "regulations generators." She offered that the Version J
would retain the requirement for a trade or industry publication
[to publish notification of a proposed regulation change], and
she added that adopting the CS might be like "nailing Jell-O to
a wall."
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS clarified that Version J has been adopted
by the committee. He asked that at the next committee meeting,
members be provided with a review of the spectrum of annual
savings to each license holder if the requirement for newspaper
publication of notification were eliminated.
MS. CHAMBER responded that an updated fiscal note would be
provided for Version J. She added that if the proposed
legislation eliminates the newspaper notification requirement
but includes a trade or industry publication notification
requirement, it may result in a far greater expense.
3:54:30 PM
REPRESENTATIVE WOOL offered that a licensee would be notified of
a proposed change in regulation; the discussion is regarding
notice to the public. He asked, "Are you trying to reach beyond
the licensees? Are you just trying to reach ... the average guy
or girl? ... Who are you trying to reach with this?"
MS. POLLARD answered that the people that an agency, board, or
commission must reach is listed in the APA mandatory steps;
these people include the licensees under CBPL, anyone on an
interested parties list, and legislators. She stated that it is
set in statute; the legislature gives the agencies parameters as
to who needs to receive notice; and the intention is that the
maximum number of people who are interested in the regulatory
action will receive notice.
REPRESENTATIVE WOOL mentioned that the trend of newspaper
publishers is to put content online; people do not buy as many
newspapers as they once did; and more people are reading
newspapers online. He said that as a purchaser of a newspaper
advertisement, he is given the choice - print or digital. He
suggested that there are many who do read legal notices
depending on their interests. He maintained that putting notice
on a public, centralized location rather than a state website
would be desirable to the average person.
3:57:32 PM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON referred to page 3, line 4, which read,
"contentions in writing or orally" and asked Ms. Pollard if she
had any comment on that phrase.
MS. POLLARD responded that DOL does not have any comment. She
explained that the section deals with public proceedings in a
regulations project and would require that people interested in
commenting would have the opportunity to present comments orally
as well as in writing. She added that currently that is
optional for agencies and boards.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON referred to someone calling in to an
agency with a comment on a proposed regulation and asked if that
spoken testimony must be recorded to be part of the official
record.
MS. POLLARD answered that there is a requirement in the APA that
an agency "take a hard look" at comments received during a
regulations project; a complex regulations project attracts a
great deal of written information; and the agency would document
the receipt of comments while responding to them. She added
that when DOL reviews a regulations project, it must have
evidence that it complied with each statutory procedure, which
includes an affidavit from the person handling the regulations
project that oral and written comments were considered.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON asked if under the proposed legislation,
oral comments would be recorded verbatim and entered into the
record.
MS. POLLARD pointed out that page 10 of DOL's Drafting Manual
for Administrative Regulations was included in the committee
packet. She explained that this page advises agencies on
handling public hearings; the agency must have a plan for
keeping a record of the public comments received. She gave as
examples transcription by a court reporter or staff notes.
4:02:20 PM
REPRESENTATIVE BIRCH stated that he supports the proposed
legislation because it addresses both written and oral
testimony. He mentioned that some people will call in repeating
the testimony they gave in an email. He said that the proposed
legislation offers more opportunity for testimony. He stated
that he also supports eliminating the requirement for publishing
notification [of proposed regulation change] in newspapers to
save money.
4:03:17 PM
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS opened public testimony on HB 190.
4:03:28 PM
PAMELA SAMASH testified that she supports HB 190 because of her
experience with the Alaska State Medical Board (ASMB). She
stated that she was denied the opportunity to provide oral
testimony on a regulation that was important to her and "a
matter of life or death." She said she asked ASMB for the
opportunity to provide oral testimony but was only allowed to
give written testimony by email. She said she was concerned
that ASMB members would not read all the written testimony they
received. She maintained that because the issue being
considered by ASMB was "lethal and dangerous to human life," she
wanted to be sure that each member of ASMB heard her testimony.
She asserted that ASMB never agreed to hear oral testimony, and
she said that she hopes the members read most of the emailed
testimony. She said that she felt "powerless and silent"
regarding a vote that was very important to her and to "hundreds
and thousands of future very innocent people."
4:05:25 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KNOPP asked Ms. Samash where she looks for
proposed regulation changes - the online site or the newspaper.
MS. SAMASH replied that she has received notice through the
newspaper, but for the regulation to which she was referring in
her testimony, she received notification through the internet.
4:06:34 PM
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS, after ascertaining that there was no one
else who wished to testify, closed public testimony on HB 190.
4:06:45 PM
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS announced that HB 190 would be held over.