Legislature(2017 - 2018)GRUENBERG 120

04/11/2017 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.

Download Mp3. <- Right click and save file as

* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
Heard & Held
Heard & Held
-- Public Testimony --
+ Bills Previously Heard/Scheduled TELECONFERENCED
            HB 190-REGULATION ADOPTION/ORAL COMMENT                                                                         
3:11:38 PM                                                                                                                    
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS  announced that the first  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."   [Before  the committee,                                                               
adopted as a  work draft on 4/4/17, was  the committee substitute                                                               
(CS)  for   HB  190,  Version  30-LS0732\J,   Banister,  3/31/17,                                                               
referred to as "Version J."]                                                                                                    
3:12:52 PM                                                                                                                    
REPRESENTATIVE  BIRCH referred  to  the proposed  Amendment 1  to                                                               
Version J, which read:                                                                                                          
     Page 1, line 1, following "Act":                                                                                         
          Insert "relating to the adoption, amendment, or                                                                     
     repeal of regulations;"                                                                                                  
     Page 1, line 2:                                                                                                            
          Delete "and"                                                                                                        
     Page 1, line 3, following "regulations":                                                                                 
          Insert "; and relating to the consideration of                                                                      
        the cost to the state of the proposed adoption,                                                                       
     amendment, or repeal of regulations"                                                                                     
     Page 3, line 9, following "persons":                                                                                       
          Insert "and to the state"                                                                                         
     Page 3, following line 9:                                                                                                  
     Insert a new bill section to read:                                                                                         
       "* Sec. 4. AS 44.62.210 is amended by adding a new                                                                     
     subsection to read:                                                                                                        
          (c)  If an agency has taken both written and oral                                                                     
      testimony under this section, the agency shall limit                                                                      
     extensions to one extension in 45 days."                                                                                   
     Renumber the following bill sections accordingly.                                                                          
REPRESENTATIVE BIRCH explained the  proposed changes to Version J                                                               
under Amendment  1:   inserts "the consideration  of cost  to the                                                               
state  of   the  proposed  adoption,  amendment,   or  repeal  of                                                               
regulations" to  the title [page  1, line  1]; and inserts  a new                                                               
subsection (c)  to Section  4 [page 3,  following line  9], which                                                               
would place a limitation on extensions for taking testimony.                                                                    
3:14:04 PM                                                                                                                    
JULIE MORRIS,  Staff, Representative Dave Talerico,  Alaska State                                                               
Legislature, on behalf of  Representative Talerico, prime sponsor                                                               
of HB  190, relayed that the  intent of Amendment 1  is to ensure                                                               
that  the cost  to the  state also  would be  considered whenever                                                               
there was a  proposal to change regulations.   She explained that                                                               
the intent of subsection (c)  is to limit requests for extensions                                                               
[for  taking testimony]  if  the agency  has  already taken  both                                                               
written and oral  testimony.  She maintained  that extensions can                                                               
be costly for the state.                                                                                                        
CHAIR  KREISS-TOMKINS asked  for an  explanation of  "extensions"                                                               
and how they work.                                                                                                              
MS. MORRIS stated that an extension  is a "re-notice."  After the                                                               
process  of  posting  a  notice  [of  a  regulation  change]  and                                                               
collecting comments, an agency then  may decide to re-notice [the                                                               
change].   She  conceded that  she could  not comment  on why  an                                                               
agency would  choose to re-notice and  at what point it  might do                                                               
3:16:33 PM                                                                                                                    
MICAELA  FOWLER,  Special   Assistant,  Department  of  Commerce,                                                               
Community &  Economic Development  (DCCED), responded  that there                                                               
are a variety  of circumstances in which DCCED  would re-notice a                                                               
regulations  project.    She  gave  two  situations:    there  is                                                               
significant  public interest  in a  project, and  DCCED wants  to                                                               
provide additional time  to comment; and a large  group of people                                                               
who are  interested parties of  a project are  unavailable during                                                               
the comment period.                                                                                                             
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS  asked how  frequent it is  that regulations                                                               
projects  are  re-noticed  or the  [opportunity  to]  comment  is                                                               
MS.  FOWLER  answered that  DCCED  extends  [the opportunity  to]                                                               
comment on about two or three projects per year.                                                                                
3:18:02 PM                                                                                                                    
REPRESENTATIVE KNOPP  referred to page  1, line 1, of  Version J,                                                               
which  read in  part,  "An  Act relating  to  giving notice"  and                                                               
pointed out  that the  language in Amendment  1 does  not mention                                                               
"giving  notice".     He  asked  if  Amendment   1  would  change                                                               
substantially the intent of Version J.                                                                                          
MS.  FOWLER responded  that Amendment  1 would  insert additional                                                               
language but  does not delete any  language from page 1,  line 1,                                                               
of Version J.                                                                                                                   
3:19:09 PM                                                                                                                    
SUSAN  POLLARD,  Chief  Assistant Attorney  General  -  Statewide                                                               
Section  Supervisor, Legislation  &  Regulations Sections,  Civil                                                               
Division  (Juneau),   referred  to   the  language  in   the  new                                                               
subsection  (c)   under  Amendment   1,  and  she   stated,  "Our                                                               
discussion here  is focused on  what we would  call 'supplemental                                                               
notice.'"    She said  that  it  appears  that the  amendment  is                                                               
addressing the  extension of a hearing  time.  She asked  if that                                                               
is the intent.                                                                                                                  
REPRESENTATIVE BIRCH expressed his  understanding that the intent                                                               
is to limit multiple extensions of oral testimony.                                                                              
MS. POLLARD  asked if  Amendment 1 addresses  the notice  that is                                                               
posted  for proposed  regulations.   She relayed  that there  are                                                               
steps the agency  needs to take and a statute  relating to public                                                               
proceedings; and  that statute appears  to be the one  that would                                                               
be  amended under  Amendment  1.   She  stated  that the  statute                                                               
relates  to when  agencies may  have the  public proceeding  on a                                                               
regulations  project  in  addition  to a  written  notice.    She                                                               
expressed her understanding  that the focus of Amendment  1 is on                                                               
supplemental notice; an  agency would be allowed no  more than 45                                                               
days of an extended supplemental notice.                                                                                        
MS.  MORRIS offered  that  the  extensions are  not  just to  the                                                               
hearing, but to the whole regulation  process.  She said that the                                                               
intent of  Amendment 1 is to  limit taking testimony to  one more                                                               
time  after  an  agency  has   collected  all  oral  and  written                                                               
comments.   She suggested, instead,  the wording,  "extensions of                                                               
re-notice".    She  expressed  her  belief  that  the  intent  of                                                               
Amendment  1  is clear;  she  offered  support for  amending  the                                                               
amendment  to ensure  that the  wording is  acceptable to  DOL in                                                               
expressing that intent.                                                                                                         
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS asked Ms. Pollard  if the wording in the new                                                               
subsection (c)  achieves the intent  as described or if  it would                                                               
benefit from revision.                                                                                                          
MS. POLLARD  responded that DOL  staff would need time  to review                                                               
and discuss the wording.  She  maintained that the intent of what                                                               
is desired is clear:  that  an agency, board, or commission could                                                               
do  a supplemental  notice but  only provide  the public  45 more                                                               
days in which to submit additional comments.                                                                                    
3:23:42 PM                                                                                                                    
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS  asked if Amendment  1 has been  proposed to                                                               
address  a specific  problem:   Are  there  particular board  and                                                               
commissions for which there have been multiple extensions?                                                                      
REPRESENTATIVE BIRCH offered that  the proposed legislation would                                                               
benefit boards and commissions "across the board."                                                                              
MS. MORRIS,  in response  to Representative  Kreiss-Tomkins, said                                                               
certainly.   She  relayed that  the state  wants to  avoid "doing                                                               
regulations" repeatedly.  She said  she understands the situation                                                               
where  a   regulations  package  fails  to   accomplish  what  is                                                               
intended;  there  are  negative   comments;  and  the  regulation                                                               
package  is re-worked  and re-noticed.   She  maintained that  in                                                               
that  situation, it  would be  a completely  different regulation                                                               
package; not the  same regulations "rolled out again."   She said                                                               
that the  intent of Amendment 1  is to avoid spending  more money                                                               
on the  same regulations  "being rolled out  again and  again and                                                               
3:25:34 PM                                                                                                                    
REPRESENTATIVE  KNOPP referred  to discussion  during a  previous                                                               
committee meeting  [4/4/17] and expressed his  understanding that                                                               
it was  decided that  when a  board has  the option  of accepting                                                               
oral  and written  testimony,  it is  not  necessary to  continue                                                               
offering extensions to testimony.                                                                                               
REPRESENTATIVE BIRCH responded yes.                                                                                             
MS. MORRIS answered,  "You have it absolutely right."   She added                                                               
that the inclusion  of oral comment in Version J  allows for that                                                               
extra testimony,  and the intent  of the proposed  legislation is                                                               
that the  testimony not "continue  on."  She maintained  that the                                                               
sponsor of HB 190 supports Amendment 1.                                                                                         
3:27:16 PM                                                                                                                    
REPRESENTATIVE KNOPP  asked Ms. Pollard if  Legislative Legal and                                                               
Research  Services, when  drafting the  amendment, considers  the                                                               
concern [regarding  intent and wording] that  Ms. Pollard brought                                                               
MS. POLLARD responded that she could  not give an exact answer to                                                               
the question.   She said Legislative Legal  and Research Services                                                               
drafts amendments  as requested  using general language  from the                                                               
sponsor or more specific language.   She stated that she looks at                                                               
it in the  context of the statute in which  it would be inserted;                                                               
the statute relates to hearings;  and she has questions regarding                                                               
the  word  "extensions"  and  at what  point  the  45-day  period                                                               
begins.  She offered that DOL would review the language.                                                                        
3:29:12 PM                                                                                                                    
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS  suggested revising  the amendment  with the                                                               
assistance of DOL.                                                                                                              
REPRESENTATIVE BIRCH pointed  out that DOL has not  had much time                                                               
to review the amendment; he  maintained that Amendment 1 proposes                                                               
a straightforward  change; and he  asked what the  downside would                                                               
be  of adopting  Amendment  1  and making  a  revision "down  the                                                               
CHAIR  KREISS-TOMKINS  mentioned  that the  House  State  Affairs                                                               
Standing  Committee is  the only  committee of  referral for  the                                                               
proposed legislation.                                                                                                           
REPRESENTATIVE BIRCH asked the time  line for doing the necessary                                                               
legal review of Amendment 1.                                                                                                    
REPRESENTATIVE KNOPP  asked if it  would be appropriate  to adopt                                                               
the  proposed amendments,  introduce a  forthcoming CS,  and make                                                               
amendments after DOL has reviewed the CS.                                                                                       
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS  answered that  he thought  that was  a good                                                               
suggestion, and the  intent of Amendment 1  is clearly understood                                                               
by the committee.                                                                                                               
3:32:42 PM                                                                                                                    
REPRESENTATIVE  BIRCH moved  to  adopt Amendment  1, labeled  30-                                                               
LS0732\J.2,  Bannister,  4/7/17.     There  being  no  objection,                                                               
Amendment 1 was adopted.                                                                                                        
3:33:16 PM                                                                                                                    
REPRESENTATIVE  BIRCH referred  to  the proposed  Amendment 2  to                                                               
Version J, which read:                                                                                                          
     Page 1, line 2:                                                                                                            
          Delete "and"                                                                                                        
     Page 1, line 3, following "regulations":                                                                                 
          Insert "; and relating to the identification of a                                                                   
         person who comments on the proposed adoption,                                                                        
     amendment, or repeal of regulations"                                                                                     
     Page 3, line 4, following "orally.":                                                                                       
          Insert "The agency shall require a person who                                                                     
     presents  a  statement,   argument,  or  contention  in                                                                
     writing  or  orally  to give  the  person's  name  and,                                                                
     unless acting on the person's  own behalf, the person's                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE BIRCH  relayed that  the Amendment 2  would revise                                                               
the title of  the proposed legislation.  It also  would assist in                                                               
avoiding  outside   interests  when  implementing   or  reviewing                                                               
proposed regulations; currently  there is no way  of verifying if                                                               
people  influencing [regulations]  changes through  testimony are                                                               
Alaska residents.   Amendment  2 proposes  a process  whereby the                                                               
agency  requires a  person presenting  a statement,  argument, or                                                               
contention in writing  or orally to give his/her name  and if not                                                               
speaking on one's own behalf, to give his/her affiliation.                                                                      
MS. MORRIS  stated that  the sponsor is  in total  agreement with                                                               
Amendment 2.                                                                                                                    
MS. POLLARD  expressed her  concern that the  agency may  want to                                                               
consider an anonymous comment.                                                                                                  
3:34:57 PM                                                                                                                    
REPRESENTATIVE WOOL  asked if it  occurs that  someone submitting                                                               
written testimony does not want to disclose his/her identity.                                                                   
MS. POLLARD  responded that  agencies are  best able  to describe                                                               
how  many comments  they receive;  most agencies  let the  public                                                               
know in the notice that  written comments are considered a public                                                               
record - not published - but a public record.                                                                                   
3:35:42 PM                                                                                                                    
REPRESENTATIVE BIRCH maintained that if  50 people testify, it is                                                               
germane to  him if  they are  constituents, Alaskans,  or out-of-                                                               
state  residents.   He asserted  that knowing  who is  testifying                                                               
is relevant  information and asking  for name and  affiliation is                                                               
CHAIR   KREISS-TOMKINS  asked   if  agencies   receive  anonymous                                                               
comments on regulations currently, and how agencies respond.                                                                    
MS. FOWLER replied  that she cannot recall  any recent occurrence                                                               
of the submission of an  anonymous comment, but she conceded that                                                               
she would  need to review  the records  to determine if  that has                                                               
REPRESENTATIVE BIRCH suggested  that if a testifier  had a reason                                                               
to be anonymous,  the person presiding over a  hearing would have                                                               
the discretion  to allow anonymity.   He maintained that it  is a                                                               
reasonable expectation  for most  people who testify  to identify                                                               
themselves and their affiliations.                                                                                              
3:38:03 PM                                                                                                                    
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS agreed  that it would be  in the commenter's                                                               
best  interest to  identify himself/herself.    He expressed  his                                                               
concern  that  requiring  a person  to  identify  himself/herself                                                               
would preclude anyone wishing to remain anonymous.                                                                              
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX  pointed out that anyone  testifying before                                                               
the House State  Affairs Standing Committee is  asked to identify                                                               
himself/herself  and state  his/her affiliation  for the  record.                                                               
She asserted that  it does not seem unreasonable  to require that                                                               
of someone testifying on an agency regulation.                                                                                  
REPRESENTATIVE  KNOPP  expressed   that  identifying  oneself  is                                                               
appropriate  and  common  practice;  however,  anonymous  written                                                               
testimony could  be noted  as such.   He  offered reasons  for an                                                               
anonymous telephonic  testimony -  someone with involvement  in a                                                               
crime or violation or someone  not wanting his/her affiliation to                                                               
be known.  He maintained that  it is reasonable to request a name                                                               
and affiliation;  it goes  to the  credibility of  the testimony;                                                               
and  those  not  offering  name and  affiliation  may  state  the                                                               
reason.  He stated that he supports the proposed Amendment 2.                                                                   
3:41:29 PM                                                                                                                    
REPRESENTATIVE  BIRCH moved  to  adopt Amendment  2, labeled  30-                                                               
LS0732\J.3,  Bannister,  4/10/17.    There  being  no  objection,                                                               
Amendment 2 was adopted.                                                                                                        
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS announced that HB 190 would be held over.                                                                  
3:42:50 PM                                                                                                                    
REPRESENTATIVE  WOOL  expressed  his concern  with  the  proposed                                                               
legislation  -  the  elimination  of  newspaper  [publication  of                                                               
notice]  requirement.   He stated  that  in smaller  communities,                                                               
newspapers may  be the main  source of news; not  everyone living                                                               
in a cabin in rural Alaska  uses a phone to read agency websites.                                                               
He asserted  that for some  people, not having  notices published                                                               
in a generally accessible medium may not be optimal.                                                                            
REPRESENTATIVE  BIRCH  responded  that the  proposed  legislation                                                               
does  not  prohibit the  publication  of  a notification  in  the                                                               
newspaper; a notice could be  published in a community newspaper,                                                               
if the  regulation were  specific to that  community.   He stated                                                               
that  the proposed  legislation would  eliminate publishing  in a                                                               
newspaper as a requirement.                                                                                                     
REPRESENTATIVE WOOL conceded that he  understands that, but if it                                                               
is not  required, agencies would be  less inclined to do  it.  He                                                               
reiterated  that for  some  people, the  newspaper  may be  their                                                               
source of public notice.                                                                                                        
3:45:21 PM                                                                                                                    
REPRESENTATIVE   KNOPP   mentioned   that   Title   29   requires                                                               
municipalities to advertise for public  notice; he asked if there                                                               
would be  conflicting requirements in statute  if the requirement                                                               
is deleted from this title [Title 44].                                                                                          
MS.  POLLARD  reminded the  committee  that  she is  speaking  as                                                               
someone  from  DOL  who  advises  executive  branch  agencies  on                                                               
regulations   issues;   her   comments   are   limited   to   the                                                               
legislatively  mandated  steps  that an  agency,  which  includes                                                               
boards  and   commissions,  must  perform  to   validly  adopt  a                                                               
regulation under  the Administrative  Procedures Act (APA).   She                                                               
stated that other  agencies that need to  advertise public notice                                                               
-  for  example for  land  use  decisions  - may  have  different                                                               
MS. POLLARD asserted that it is  true that what the government is                                                               
doing is considered by most to  be a core function of government;                                                               
and it  is also  correct that throughout  the statutes  there are                                                               
many references to  newspaper notice.  She said that  the goal of                                                               
notice in a  regulatory context, which includes  a broad spectrum                                                               
of  issues  of  all  executive  agencies, is  to  reach  as  many                                                               
Alaskans  as  potentially  might  be  affected  by  a  regulatory                                                               
package of an agency action.                                                                                                    
3:49:07 PM                                                                                                                    
MS.  POLLARD  stated  that  for  many  years  there  has  been  a                                                               
requirement   to  publish   notice  in   newspapers  of   general                                                               
circulation.   She  mentioned  that people  have  brought up  the                                                               
possibility  of less  costly  notification.   She  said that  the                                                               
notice of  regulations is  required by  the legislature,  and the                                                               
three main avenues of publication are:   notice in a newspaper of                                                               
general circulation  or trade or industry  publication; notice on                                                               
the  online notice  system; and  notice sent  to legislators  and                                                               
interested parties.  She said that  APA, in Title 44, Chapter 62,                                                               
references publication  in newspapers; newspaper  publication has                                                               
been the main avenue of notice for  many years.  It gives as many                                                               
people as  possible easy access  to the information and  avoids a                                                               
"digital  divide"  -  allowing some  people  better  access  than                                                               
CHAIR   KREISS-TOMKINS,  referring   to  Representative   Knopp's                                                               
question,  asked  if  there  would  be  different  standards  for                                                               
municipal governments than for the  state government for noticing                                                               
REPRESENTATIVE KNOPP  added that his question  concerned not only                                                               
the  notice requirement  but the  terms  of notice  - length  and                                                               
number of times.   He offered that when the  statute was written,                                                               
before  electronic  media,  newspapers  were what  existed.    He                                                               
asserted that there  are many statutes that  address notices, and                                                               
improperly giving notice is always a concern for municipalities.                                                                
3:52:19 PM                                                                                                                    
REPRESENTATIVE  BIRCH relayed  his  experience  at the  municipal                                                               
level,  which was  to  choose the  publication  that targets  the                                                               
interested parties.                                                                                                             
MS. POLLARD stated  that statutory agencies are  required to take                                                               
the procedural  steps when doing regulations  projects; these are                                                               
"good" steps that allow the  public to understand and participate                                                               
in  the  regulatory process.    She  maintained  that DOL  has  a                                                               
selection  of forms  that  it  requests agencies  to  use in  the                                                               
regulations process  so that a record  of the steps taken  can be                                                               
filed with the  Office of the Lieutenant  Governor; therefore, if                                                               
there is a  challenge to a regulation, there is  always a package                                                               
showing that all  the steps were taken.  She  relayed that in the                                                               
package is an  affidavit related to public comment and  a copy or                                                               
other  proof of  the newspaper  notice.   She suggested  that the                                                               
committee  consider  what  constitutes   a  good  record  of  the                                                               
3:55:25 PM                                                                                                                    
REPRESENTATIVE KNOPP suggested  language on page 1,  line 8-9, to                                                               
say  "may publish  in  the newspaper  of  general circulation  or                                                               
trade or industry publication".   He asked if that language would                                                               
leave it to  the agency to decide the method  of notification and                                                               
give flexibility  to the  agency.  He  offered that  the decision                                                               
may be  on a  case-by-case basis depending  on the  regulation or                                                               
where the hearings  are held; the state would  not be restricting                                                               
but providing  options.  An  agency may explore one  avenue, find                                                               
that it is not adequate, and opt for another.                                                                                   
MS. MORRIS  reminded the committee  that they are  the lawmakers,                                                               
and from  those laws,  regulations are written.   The  APA offers                                                               
"or" and  not "and"; therefore, notice  may be in a  newspaper or                                                               
trade  or  industry  publication.   She  maintained  that  it  is                                                               
important  to pay  attention to  the  "ors" and  the "ands"  when                                                               
considering  proposed legislation;  the agency  does not  have to                                                               
notice regulations  by all  the methods  listed.   She reiterated                                                               
that through  notification, the  agency must  reach the  group of                                                               
people most impacted by the regulations.                                                                                        
MS. MORRIS  expressed that she  understands the  determination of                                                               
the state to  reach as many people as possible  and maintained it                                                               
does that.   She  pointed out  page 1, line  10, [of  Version J],                                                               
which read  in part, "and  the state agency's  Internet website";                                                               
this would  allow the public  to comment  online with a  name and                                                               
email address.   She  offered that  sometimes the  process "feels                                                               
like  it's  on autopilot"  and  her  intent  is  to take  if  off                                                               
autopilot.   She maintained that "we  need to be more  in control                                                               
what  happens in  our state,  how  much money  we're spending  on                                                               
regulations,  and who  is influencing  our regulations";  that is                                                               
the intent of  the proposed legislation, and the  sponsor is open                                                               
to doing that the best way possible.                                                                                            
REPRESENTATIVE  KNOPP   responded  that   his  concern   was  for                                                               
notification, not  regulation.   He pointed out  that on  page 1,                                                               
lines 8-9,  "newspaper of general  circulation or"  is bracketed,                                                               
therefore,  would be  deleted, which  leaves  "trade or  industry                                                               
publication".   He maintained that  including the  language, "may                                                               
publish  in   newspaper  of  general  circulation"   would  avoid                                                               
requiring it but would provide the option.                                                                                      
3:59:38 PM                                                                                                                    
CHAIR  KREISS-TOMKINS  asked  how agencies  currently  have  used                                                               
their discretion  in deciding the  avenue of  notification; which                                                               
regulation  notices  are  published  in a  newspaper  of  general                                                               
circulation  and  which are  published  in  a trade  or  industry                                                               
publication?   He asked for  specific examples  demonstrating how                                                               
the decisions regarding publication of notices are made.                                                                        
MS. FOWLER replied  that typically DCCED chooses to  publish in a                                                               
newspaper over a trade or industry  publication due to cost.  She                                                               
said  that the  cost  of  publishing in  most  of  the trade  and                                                               
industry publications is  greater than publishing in  some of the                                                               
newspapers  of  general  circulation;  however,  there  is  great                                                               
variety  among  publishing  costs.    She  offered  as  examples:                                                               
advertising  in the  Anchorage Dispatch  News  (ADN) often  costs                                                               
$750; and  the Juneau Empire  is more expensive.   She maintained                                                               
that the  decisions are driven  by the situations,  programs, and                                                               
populations  of  interest.    She stated  that  the  Division  of                                                               
Banking  and  Securities  (DBS)  [DCCED]  revises  Alaska  Native                                                               
Claims  Settlement  Act  (ANCSA) regulations  relating  to  proxy                                                               
solicitations about once per year;  the [revised] regulations are                                                               
published  in approximately  nine different  newspapers to  reach                                                               
the  greatest number  of affected  individuals.   She  maintained                                                               
that DCCED is making determinations  based on the population, the                                                               
location  of the  population,  and the  best  method of  reaching                                                               
4:01:38 PM                                                                                                                    
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS referred  to Version J beginning  on page 1,                                                               
line 13, and ending on page 2,  line 3, which read in part, "when                                                               
broadcasting the  notice, an agency  may use an  abbreviated form                                                               
of  the notice  ... the  Internet  address of  the Alaska  Online                                                               
Public Notice  System where the  full text  of the notice  can be                                                               
found".   He  maintained  that  with that  provision,  it is  not                                                               
necessary  to  publish "essays"  of  regulatory  language in  the                                                               
newspaper,  but  a  short  description   and  the  link  to  more                                                               
information on  the Internet.   He asked how often  that scenario                                                               
MS. FOWLER replied that she will provide that information.                                                                      
REPRESENTATIVE   LEDOUX  asked   for  the   cost  of   a  typical                                                               
advertisement in  the smaller  newspapers, such  as in  Homer and                                                               
MS. FOWLER responded that she will provide that information.                                                                    
4:03:03 PM                                                                                                                    
REPRESENTATIVE   WOOL  mentioned   that  the   frequency  of   an                                                               
advertisement  is  another variable  in  cost.   He  agreed  that                                                               
reaching "non-digital" people is important.                                                                                     
4:03:52 PM                                                                                                                    
REPRESENTATIVE BIRCH  asked what  the duty  and obligation  is to                                                               
advertise  [regulations] anywhere.    He  maintained that  online                                                               
advertising is so  ubiquitous, and advertising by  print media is                                                               
almost obsolete.    He asked  if the state has  a continuing duty                                                               
to advertise in a newspaper,  trade, or industry publication.  He                                                               
stated that  he would also  like to know  what the budget  is for                                                               
advertising  and   what  the  savings  would   be  without  print                                                               
MS.  FOWLER replied  that DCCED  puts forward  between 30  and 40                                                               
regulations packages  per year; she  would need to  calculate the                                                               
cost based on those numbers.                                                                                                    
4:05:40 PM                                                                                                                    
REPRESENTATIVE  BIRCH  suggested that  it  might  be 30-40  times                                                               
$1,000.   He asked  if the proposed  legislation would  result in                                                               
savings in  other state departments;  he relayed that he  did not                                                               
have  a  sense  of  the  savings that  would  be  involved.    He                                                               
suggested  that  the state  could  be  creative and  flexible  in                                                               
encouraging people to  do what is commonly done  in private life:                                                               
consulting craigslist and electronic media for advertising.                                                                     
MS.  FOWLER   stated  that   she  can   speak  only   to  DCCED's                                                               
regulations;  she said  she  knew that  all  the departments  are                                                               
assessing  the  impact  of  the  proposed  legislation  and  that                                                               
information will be forthcoming from the executive branch.                                                                      
REPRESENTATIVE BIRCH  asked if the state  has a sense of  what is                                                               
adequate for advertising from a legal standpoint.                                                                               
MS. POLLARD said  that she would follow up on  that request.  She                                                               
offered  to  provide  the committee  with  "shorthand  sentences"                                                               
reflecting pertinent  Alaska Supreme  Court decisions.   She said                                                               
that  the  purpose of  notice  is  to spur  potentially  affected                                                               
people into taking a closer look.                                                                                               
4:08:05 PM                                                                                                                    
MS. MORRIS  relayed that she  and the sponsor  know that it  is a                                                               
legal  imperative  that  everyone  affected by  a  regulation  is                                                               
reached.    She stated  that the  committee has not  received all                                                               
the  fiscal  notes  yet  from the  administration;  they  are  in                                                               
review;  and that  information would  provide information  on the                                                               
impact  of the  proposed legislation.   She  maintained that  the                                                               
proposed legislation will  be revised to address  the concerns of                                                               
Representatives  Knopp and  LeDoux regarding  reaching people  in                                                               
small communities.                                                                                                              
4:09:10 PM                                                                                                                    
REPRESENTATIVE  KNOPP  stated  that   he  supports  the  proposed                                                               
legislation;  he  is aware  that  newspaper  advertising will  be                                                               
obsolete soon.   He  maintained that  he dealt  with the  cost of                                                               
advertising  at  the  local  level  and  believes  that  $750  is                                                               
inexpensive.  He recommended inserting  "may" [page 1, line 8] to                                                               
give  the  departments options  for  the  best method  of  giving                                                               
notice, in lieu of a mandate.                                                                                                   
4:10:04 PM                                                                                                                    
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS announced that HB 190 would be held over.                                                                  

Document Name Date/Time Subjects
HB190 Draft Proposed Amendment J.2 4.11.17.pdf HSTA 4/11/2017 3:00:00 PM
HB 190
HB190 Draft Proposed Amendment J.3 4.11.17.pdf HSTA 4/11/2017 3:00:00 PM
HB 190
HB190 Fiscal Note DOC 4.11.17.pdf HSTA 4/11/2017 3:00:00 PM
HB 190
HB190 Fiscal Note DOT 4.11.17.pdf HSTA 4/11/2017 3:00:00 PM
HB 190
HB190 Fiscal Note DOL 4.11.17.pdf HSTA 4/11/2017 3:00:00 PM
HB 190
HB190 Fiscal Note DPS 4.11.17.pdf HSTA 4/11/2017 3:00:00 PM
HB 190
HB190 Fiscal Note DEC 4.11.17.pdf HSTA 4/11/2017 3:00:00 PM
HB 190