HOUSE BILL NO. 264 "An Act providing for a negotiated regulation making process; and providing for an effective date." REPRESENTATIVE JEANNETTE JAMES, SPONSOR spoke in support of the proposed committee substitute for HB 264, Work Draft 0- LS0910\L, dated 2/25/98. Deborah Behr, Assistant Attorney General, Department of Law reviewed changes made by the proposed committee substitute. ? Page 3, lines 1 & 3, "An agency shall notify the public so that interested parties can apply..." Ms. Behr noted that this language allows flexibility to notify the public in a manner that results in the least cost. "Interested persons" was included to clarify that an individual may volunteer their time, even if they are not directly affected by the regulation. This is to allow retired public officials, judges and others to participate. ? Page 3, lines 17 & 18, "The agency should strive to achieve the balanced committee representation..." Ms. Behr emphasized that the intent is to achieve balance. It was not placed in statute because it would be difficult to assess when balance is achieved. ? Page 5, lines 16 & 17, "Members of a negotiated regulation making committee are responsible for their own expenses of participation." The prior version would have required agencies to certify need. The subcommittee decided that each member would pay his or her own way. Ms. Behr maintained that this provision would result in meetings being held in metropolitan areas. Groups will have to take donations and pay for their own members to travel. Teleconferencing will be used. ? Page 5, lines 26 - 29, Disclosure This would require a member to disclose gifts; grants or other financial benefits that exceed $150 dollars and have been accepted to finance the disclosure member's participation on the regulation committee. Ms. Behr did not think a member would have to disclose their salary. ? Page 7, line 17, Immunity for members of a negotiated rules making committee and its members. Ms. Behr noted that CSHB 264 (STA) did not provide absolute immunity to members participating on the committee. The proposed committee substitute provides absolute immunity. She observed that the members would only advise on various decisions. She emphasized that the provision would encourage private businesspersons to participate. ? Page 7, lines 27 - 30, Members of a Negotiated Rule Making Committee. Ms. Behr explained that this would exempt members from the provisions of the Executive Ethics Act. Public officers on a negotiated rule making committee would still be under the provisions of the Executive Ethics Act. Member's financial contribution to the meeting would be disclosed under previous provisions. This would indicate their position. Criminal provisions would still apply to gross conduct, such as accepting a bribe. ? Page 8, lines 1 - 5, Conforming amendment Ms. Behr observed that this provision would bring back the existing law after five years. Representative Mulder MOVED to ADOPT Work Draft 0-LS0910\L, dated 2/25/98. There being NO OBJECTION, it was so ordered. Discussion pursued regarding the amendment to the Executive Ethics Act. Ms. Behr clarified that the legislation takes negotiated regulation making committees out of the Act. She emphasized that they are short-term committees that are not making final decisions. Only their travel is disclosed. Representative Davies did not recall discussion on the subject during the subcommittee. Representative Kelly did recall some discussion on this matter during the subcommittee hearing. Representative James spoke in support of the provision. Representative Davies expressed concern with the provision. He noted that a person would not need to disclose close financial associations or their employer. Ms. Behr emphasized that the intent of the legislation is to encourage upper level executives of private businesses. Co-Chair Therriault observed that members do not authorize actions. Representative Davies spoke in support of balancing disclosure requirements to indicate a member's general bias. Co-Chair Therriault asked if there is a problem in the current stakeholder process mechanism. Representative Davies MOVED to ADOPT Amendment 1 (copy on file). Co-Chair Therriault OBJECTED for the purpose of discussion. Amendment 1 would amend page 5, line 17 by inserting "if they have adequate resources. However, an agency may pay for a committee member's reasonable travel and per diem expenses..." He observed that the amendment would allow agencies to pay for members. Members would still be generally responsible to pay their own way. Ms. Behr clarified that the legislation would not allow agencies to pay for a member's travel. She noted that if the section were deleted the status quo would prevail. She expressed concern with Amendment 1. She noted the difficulty in assessing the ability to pay. Representative Grussendorf spoke in support of allowing agencies to pay. He observed that there might be circumstances where an agency would want to pay someone's way to achieve balance on the committee. Representative Martin spoke against the amendment. He expressed concern that it would be costly. Representative James emphasized that it is a volunteer system that should not be costly. She preferred that agencies not pay for member's travel. Representative Davis stressed that it would not be fair to pay for some and not others. Representative Davies observed that industries would pay for their representation. He noted that members of the public might not have the same ability to pay. He stressed that the status quo allows agencies to decide. He pointed out that it would be cheaper to pay for one person's travel then to send several agency people to the area the person resides. Representative Grussendorf stressed that the ability to pay would differ. He emphasized that the amendment would help achieve balance. Representative WITHDREW Amendment 1. There being NO OBJECTION, it was so ordered. Representative Davies MOVED to delete subsection (c) on page 5, lines 16 and 17. He observed that the amendment would retain the status quo. There being NO OBJECTION, it was so ordered. Ms. Behr stated that the fiscal impact was not changed by the proposed committee substitute. Representative Martin MOVED to report CSHB 264 (FIN) out of Committee with the accompanying fiscal notes. There being NO OBJECTION, it was so ordered. CSHB 264 (FIN) was REPORTED out of Committee with "no recommendation" and with two fiscal impact notes, one by the Department of Revenue and one by the Office of the Governor.