Legislature(2017 - 2018)ADAMS ROOM 519
03/01/2018 09:00 AM 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 | |
| HB176 | |
| HB301 | |
| HCR10 || HB168 | |
| HB110 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | HB 110 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 176 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 301 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | HB 168 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | HCR 10 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| += | HB 38 | TELECONFERENCED | |
HOUSE BILL NO. 168
"An Act relating to regulation notice and review by
the legislature; and relating to the Administrative
Regulation Review Committee."
HOUSE CONCURRENT RESOLUTION NO. 10
Proposing an amendment to the Uniform Rules of the
Alaska State Legislature relating to the jurisdiction
of standing committees.
9:49:16 AM
Co-Chair Foster indicated that HB168 and HCR 10 would be
addressed together.
REPRESENTATIVE MIKE CHENAULT, SPONSOR, introduced the
legislation. He read from the sponsor statement as follows:
The purpose of House Bill 168 is to repeal the
statutes pertaining to the Administrative Regulation
Review Committee (AARC). According to the analysis
provided by Legislative Research, included in your
packets, the ARRC has not overturned any regulations
as a result of these committee hearings. Although AS
24.20.445 provides that the committee can suspend
regulations for a "certain time period," the Alaska
Supreme Court found in a 1980 case, that the
Legislature has no implied power to veto agency
regulations by informal legislative action and such
actions would violate Article II of the state
Constitution. The actions available to the ARRC are to
introduce legislation to supersede or nullify
regulations. However, Legislative Research was not
able to find any effort to do so from 2003 to the
present.
House Bill 168 repeals all references to the ARRC
throughout the statutes. The sectional analysis
references the statutes where the ARRC is repealed.
A uniform rule change, House Concurrent Resolution 10,
is also being proposed that allows the jurisdiction of
a standing committee to oversee proposed or adopted
regulations to replace regulation oversight that are
currently under the jurisdiction of ARRC.
The Administrative Regulation Review Committee has not
been funded for this and the upcoming fiscal years.
9:53:03 AM
Co-Chair Foster OPENED Public Testimony
9:53:22 AM
ED MARTIN, SELF, COOPER LANDING (via teleconference),
opposed HB 168 and HCR 10. He thought the regulation review
committee was a first line of defense to ensure that the
regulations followed the intent of the law. He hoped that
the ARRC members felt that the review of the regulations of
any new administration was imperative. He pointed to the
regulations by the new Marijuana Control Board not
reflecting the intent of the law and noted that the issue
affected him personally. He argued that the regulations
were not reviewed by the AARC. He continued to provide
testimony as to the importance of a regulation review
committee to ensure the individual liberties of Alaskans.
He offered that the original intent of the committee was to
review regulations within 45 days to ensure that "no
arbitrary and capricious laws" were enacted.
9:57:34 AM
Co-Chair Foster CLOSED Public Testimony.
Co-Chair Foster encouraged anyone to submit their public
testimony in writing.
Representative Wilson wanted to clarify that the
legislature was eliminating the AARC. However, the
regulation review responsibilities would be sent to the
standing committees. She opined that the standing committee
was a more appropriate for review since the committee could
draft a bill to clarify the statute. She declared that
regulatory review was important and ensured that the
legislature was not abandoning review; it was changing the
process.
Co-Chair Seaton related that he previously served as the
Vice-Chair for the Regulation Review Committee and he had
notified all the chairs of the standing committees that it
was the committee aides' responsibilities to review the
regulations. He explained that when an agency completed
drafting regulations it opened a public comment period; the
corresponding standing committee should review the
regulations and participate in the comment period. He
reported that during his tenure several regulations were
withdrawn and changed in that manner. He emphasized that it
was easier to change regulations on the front end rather
than after the regulation was adopted via legislation. He
shared that a Supreme Court decision relating to the
separation of powers eliminated the AARC's power to pass a
resolution to annul a regulation. He believed that it was
the responsibility of the committee of jurisdiction; the
corresponding standing committee that was deeply involved
in the department's matters over which they reside. One
committee charged with reviewing all the regulations was
not efficient. He emphasized that committees of
jurisdiction were more appropriate and effective for the
regulatory review task.
10:02:31 AM
Representative Kawasaki indicated that the AARC only
functions with a motivated chairperson. He voiced that he
was not in favor of the legislation despite the lack of
results by the committee in recent years. He believed that
the committee serve a public purpose. He reminded people
that the legislature was part-time and the AARC committee
was an interim committee. He did not believe a standing
committee should be responsible for regulation review due
to its periodic nature. He relayed that a recent regulation
adopted by the Alcohol Control Board (ABC) was discordant
with a distillery bill he had co-sponsored that passed
several years ago. He thought that the AARC could have
prevented the issue if the committee was utilized to its
fullest extent. He did not want to see the executive branch
over-riding the legislature.
Representative Ortiz asked what the impact of leaving the
AARC intact without funding was. Representative Chenault
answered that statutes should be removed when they are not
needed. He commented that the AARC met 30 times over the
last 14 years. Fifteen meetings occurred over one
legislative session without ever repealing a regulation. He
indicated that as long as there was a committee responsible
for reviewing new regulations he was comfortable with
removing the AARC. He spoke to incidences throughout his
legislative career when he questioned regulations and sent
them to the AARC for review without results. He restated
that the committee had not proposed legislation since 2003.
He advocated for the elimination of the committee.
10:09:19 AM
Representative Ortiz asked whether the potential oversight
ability of the legislature was impaired during interim by
eliminating the committee. He wondered why the committee
should be disbanded if there were no financial impacts to
retain it.
Representative Chenault remembered that approximately
$60,000 was allocated yearly for regulation review. He
noted the committee was governed under the same rules as
standing committees and could not pass legislation during
interim.
10:11:34 AM
Vice-Chair Gara thought the state had much bigger items to
be concerned with. He commented that when an agency adopted
regulations every legislature saw the regulation and was
invited to make comments. A legislator could change or
reverse a regulation through legislation and a committee
was unnecessary. He did not believe that the AARC
accomplished anything and a significant amount of time was
consumed in the process.
Co-Chair Seaton argued that every committee had a full-time
committee-aide and it was that person's responsibility to
review regulations during the interim. He remarked that the
committee staff had the expertise to review regulations. He
agreed that there was a cost to the AARC. He indicated that
a lawyer was hired to review every regulation by the
administration when he was vice-chair of the AARC. He
reiterated that the regulatory review should happen on the
front end during the public comment period. He shared that
he had seen regulations changed many times resulting from
the public comment period.
10:15:15 AM
TOM WRIGHT, STAFF REPRESENTATIVE CHENAULT, provided an
example when the Department of Transportation and Public
Facilities (DOT) recently proposed aircraft registration
fees via regulation and a bill was drafted in response to
overwhelmingly negative public comment. He voiced that he
had witnessed legislation by individual legislators
introduced in response to opposition to regulation many
times over the years.
Representative Ortiz asked why the committee had ever been
formed. Representative Chenault was unable to answer the
question.
Vice-Chair Gara recalled that the AARC was instituted by
the "other party" in response to mistrust of the Knowles
administration in the 1990's. He believed that the
committee "diverted" legislator's time for more important
issues. He emphasized that the committee was unnecessary.
Co-Chair Seaton added that at the time the AARC was formed
the legislature believed that it could nullify regulations.
However, the Supreme Court subsequently ruled that the
chief function of the AARC was unconstitutional.
Representative Pruitt thought that the inception of the
AARC went back to the 1970s and the Supreme Court case was
in 1980 which did not allow the review committee to act. He
reminded committee members that the legislature acting
together or either body individually can form a committee
via resolution and if sentiment among lawmakers was in
favor of a special committee action was possible. He agreed
that the committee did not function in the way it was
intended. He opined that the idea of the committee was a
good one, but he thought it was time to "shut the books" on
it in an effort to eliminate unnecessary statute.
10:20:02 AM
Representative Wilson asked about the regulation regarding
the aircraft registration fee. She asked whether the AARC
had met on the issue. Representative Chenault answered that
the committee was currently not in operation.
Representative Wilson opined that the public got involved
in the recent DOT regulation proposal and the regulation
was changed during the public comment period. The standing
committees were inherently involved, had a better
understanding of proposed regulations, and could inform the
public of the regulatory comment period. She agreed with
Co-Chair Seaton that standing committees had the expertise
and were best suited to monitor regulations. She emphasized
the importance of regulation review.
Co-Chair Foster asked whether the will of the committee was
to move the bill out of committee.
Representative Wilson believed the bills should report out.
Co-Chair Seaton MOVED to report HB 168 out of Committee
with individual recommendations and the accompanying fiscal
note.
There being NO OBJECTION, it was so ordered.
HB 168 was REPORTED out of committee with a "do pass"
recommendation and with a zero fiscal note by the
Legislature.
Representative Wilson MOVED to report HCR 10 out of
Committee with individual recommendations and the
accompanying fiscal note.
Representative Pruitt OBJECTED for discussion.
Representative Pruitt spoke to his objection. He wanted to
briefly describe what the resolution accomplished. He
explained that the resolution assigned the jurisdiction
over monitoring regulations to the standing committees. He
opined that the resolution "maintained' the legislature's
"vigilance" in ensuring that regulations would be analyzed.
Representative Chenault commented that Representative
Pruitt was correct about what the resolution did. He added
that the resolution changed Uniform Rules to ensure the
standing committees were aware of their jurisdiction.
Representative Kawasaki maintained his objection to the
legislation. He believed that the AARC had a definitive
purpose as a permanent interim committee. The legislature
was never intended to operate full-time. He felt that the
committee was appropriate and should be enhanced. He
pointed to the state of Idaho that had an active regulatory
review committee. He strongly supported the AARC. He
opposed the bills but was in favor of moving them from
committee.
Co-Chair Seaton appreciated the resolution that would place
the language in the Uniform Rules. The uniform rule would
specify that regulation review was the responsibility of
standing committees "in black and white." The committee
chair would task the committee aide with the review duty
during the interim. He believed the resolution clearly
established that the authority of the duty was assigned by
the legislature. He was supportive of the resolution.
Co-Chair Foster noted that the previous public testimony
period was for both bills.
Representative Pruitt WITHDREW his OBJECTION.
HCR 10 was REPORTED out of committee with a "do pass"
recommendation and with a zero fiscal note by the
Legislature.
10:30:23 AM
AT EASE
10:33:50 AM
RECONVENED
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| HB110 2.19.18 Letters of Support.pdf |
HFIN 3/1/2018 9:00:00 AM |
HB 110 |
| HB110 Sectional Analysis 2.15.18.pdf |
HFIN 3/1/2018 9:00:00 AM |
HB 110 |
| HB110 Sponsor Statement 2.15.18.pdf |
HFIN 3/1/2018 9:00:00 AM |
HB 110 |
| HB110(L&C) Explanation of Changes 2.16.18.pdf |
HFIN 3/1/2018 9:00:00 AM |
HB 110 |
| HB 168-Sectional Analysis-2018.pdf |
HFIN 3/1/2018 9:00:00 AM |
HB 168 |
| State v ALIVE Voluntary summary and headnotes-2018.pdf |
HFIN 3/1/2018 9:00:00 AM |
HB 168 |
| HB 168-Leg Research-Meetings-2018.pdf |
HFIN 3/1/2018 9:00:00 AM |
HB 168 |
| HB 168 Sponsor Statement-2018.pdf |
HFIN 3/1/2018 9:00:00 AM |
HB 168 |
| HCR 10-Uniform Rule 20-2018.pdf |
HFIN 3/1/2018 9:00:00 AM |
HCR 10 |
| HCR 10-Sponsor Statement-2018.pdf |
HFIN 3/1/2018 9:00:00 AM |
HCR 10 |
| HB110 - Support.pdf |
HFIN 3/1/2018 9:00:00 AM |
HB 110 |
| HB 110 Support Letter Gibbs.pdf |
HFIN 3/1/2018 9:00:00 AM |
HB 110 |
| HB 301 02.28.2018 DCCED HFIN Followup.pdf |
HFIN 3/1/2018 9:00:00 AM |
HB 301 |