HB 187-STATE AGENCY PUBLICATIONS  3:56:27 PM CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS announced that the next order of business would be HOUSE BILL NO. 187, "An Act relating to the elimination or modification of state agency publications that are outdated, duplicative, or excessive or that could be improved or consolidated with other publications or exclusively delivered electronically; and providing for an effective date." [Before the committee, adopted as the working document on 5/6/21, was the proposed committee substitute (CS) for HB 187, Version 32- LS0779\G, Wallace, 5/5/21 ("Version G").] 3:56:59 PM REPRESENTATIVE KAUFMAN, as the prime sponsor of HB 187, addressed Version G. He drew attention to the sponsor statement and spoke as follows: HB 187 in its current form is intended to conserve resources expended in the production, processing, transportation, distribution, storage, and disposal of excess state agency publications. The product affected by HB 187 are publications as defined in AS 44.99.240. As currently written in statute, AS 44.99.220 requires state agencies to compile and maintain a list of the publications that they produce each fiscal year. This bill would ensure that the state is receiving added value from the work that is already being done by using the list as an opportunity to assess the actual need for each document and to determine if the people of Alaska will be best served by printing or by digital delivery. HB 187 also provides for the reduction in statutory requirements to produce publications through changes made to AS 37.07.220. These changes will require that the governor submit a bill to eliminate or modify requirements for publications deemed to be outdated, duplicative, or excessive, or could be consolidated with other publications, and which of those could be delivered in electronic form. Time, energy, space, and materials can all be conserved by the passage of HB 187. CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS stated he is pleased to see HB 187 brought forward. 4:00:00 PM MATTHEW HARVEY, Staff, Representative James Kaufman, Alaska State Legislature, on behalf of Representative Kaufman, prime sponsor, presented a sectional analysis of HB 187, Version G. He explained that Section 1 would amend AS 37.07.020 to add a requirement for the governor to submit legislation to remove or amend the statutory requirements for publications that meet these qualifiers. He said Section 2 would repeal and re-enact AS 44.99.220 requiring state agencies to use the list of publications, which is currently required to be developed in that statute, to identify and highlight publications deemed to be outdated, duplicative, or excessive, or that could be consolidated with other publications, or could be delivered in electronic form. This list of publications, including highlighted publications, is required to be electronically submitted to the governor and both bodies of the legislature. The governor or the governor's designee is required to determine a goal percentage of publications to be improved upon by each state agency immediately prior to the start of each legislature on even numbered years. Mr. Harvey noted that this last part is a change and the main reason why the sponsor asked to adopt a CS. The Office of Budget and Management (OMB), he related, pointed out that complications might occur if it was submitted every year because a bill sometimes takes two years to get through both bodies. He further noted that "and" was changed to "or" in several places in the bill, along with adding that the report to the legislature would be submitted electronically. 4:02:09 PM REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN asked what the practical impact would be once the bill is passed into law. REPRESENTATIVE KAUFMAN deferred to Mr. Harvey to answer. MR. HARVEY replied that the fiscal note description states an estimate of about $585,000 per year to print publications. He said the sponsor does not have an estimate for the time, delivery, and other things related to going from printing to electronic and from getting rid of reports. Also, he noted, the setting of goal percentages could differ department by department. 4:03:38 PM REPRESENTATIVE STORY stated that this is a great idea. She said she likes that a look is being taken at documents and publications that could be improved, consolidated, or delivered electronically. She noted that not everyone has access to the internet, so there are times when documents do need to be produced and she is glad to see that in the bill. REPRESENTATIVE KAUFMAN responded that Version G is the blending of input received on the bill as it was presented while walking the capitol. 4:05:02 PM REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN said it makes sense to have a bill put forward which deals with publications that are required by law. He asked whether a bill is necessary for publications that are required by regulation; he surmised the administration could handle those without a bill. REPRESENTATIVE KAUFMAN answered that the bill is trying to create the feedback loop that doesn't exist right now. The intent is that legislation is required and if it can be done administratively, then it can just be reported that something was reduced. The desire is to create the feedback loop that then can be used to trigger legislation if required but also as a status report of publication. He qualified that he doesn't want to say reduction, but rather rationalizing the state's publications against what they need to be or what's beneficial and the delivery methods. He said he would welcome changes to the wording if necessary to make that clearer. 4:06:47 PM REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN drew attention to the bill, page 2, line 15, regarding a minimum percentage of publications that each state agency is to identify as needing work. He asked whether it is the sponsor's intent that the percentage cut apply to each individual agency or to all agencies collectively combined, given that some agencies may only have one or two publications. REPRESENTATIVE KAUFMAN replied that the intent is to create a custom goal-setting opportunity for each agency; it enables administrative focus. He explained the goal could be zero if an agency is so lean that it is considered a model for others; for example, an agency has aligned its document production and delivery so well that it cannot find any waste. 4:08:51 PM CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS commented that a meta-affect would be set into motion by the bill, it would be an ongoing administrative process that is aimed to reduce administrative processes. When it first runs its course, he continued, the administration will identify things that are pointless and should be ended, and hopefully the legislature will act on that and about 90 percent of the value will be realized. He inquired about the ongoing frequency of what is in Section 1 and in Section 2 on page 2, lines 14-15, given the biennial cycle. REPRESENTATIVE KAUFMAN responded that the goal of quality management is the reduction of wasted time, effort, and money for meeting an agency's desired result, and to not exceed expectations and to not underperform. When this list is compiled, he explained, it creates the awareness and then there is the opportunity to declare that some of it can be reworked. If improvement projects are done successfully, it will get to a point of diminishing returns, which would be reflected in the reports. 4:12:28 PM CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS asked what value the language in Section 2 adds beyond that which is established in Section 1. Presumably, he continued, the agencies are not going to identify anything in addition to, or different from, what is identified in Section 1. REPRESENTATIVE KAUFMAN deferred to Mr. Harvey. MR. HARVEY answered that initially the goal setting would serve for how to get those broad chops; then, as it goes on and gets into diminishing returns, there could be creativity in how to combine or better provide value with some of those reports. When it gets to the point where the returns diminish such that this itself is excessive, OMB has advised that this could then be highlighted as a report needing to be statutorily revised. 4:15:22 PM REPRESENTATIVE KAUFMAN pointed out that it is not static because two legislative bodies are producing expectations for documentation, so the list is everchanging with new inputs. The process is built the way it is, he explained, to keep the managers aware and on their toes that they can recommend consolidations or recommendations. He noted that the terms "reports" and "publications" have been used interchangeably in today's discussion, but that it is publications, the greater set of documents. CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS, regarding a report that is not adding value, questioned why anyone in an agency would not be recommending it for deletion in Section 1. In other words, he continued, the list in Section 1 would not be any different than what is in Section 2. REPRESENTATIVE KAUFMAN offered to look more closely at this to see if the bill could be made shorter. 4:16:51 PM REPRESENTATIVE TARR said she reads Section 1 as taking the information from Section 2 and requiring the governor to introduce legislation that would list those things. CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS agreed that that is right, in part, but said Section 1 would still read coherently without the process in Section 2, on page 2, line 9. REPRESENTATIVE KAUFMAN pointed out that the goal setting is not included in Section 1, which is the ongoing "let's keep working this" where there may be numerous publications and managers can have a stretch target to continue looking and improving. CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS said he understands that part but opined that the agency which should be measured for performance is the legislature. He stated that since the publications are statutorily required it is in the legislature's hands to get rid of the publications that are recommended by the agencies, so it is the legislature should be held to account relative to that recommendation. REPRESENTATIVE KAUFMAN responded he would be happy to come up with a bill to that effect. REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN remarked that there is a mechanism for making sure this bill gets heard once it is presented because there is something in the uniform rules about committees acting on all the bills that come before them. 4:20:05 PM REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN asked for an estimate on the length of time it would take to compile the list, given the even year requirement. REPRESENTATIVE KAUFMAN replied it is variable because it depends on the length and complexity of the list for each agency. The list already exists, the challenge would be to do the analysis for making recommendations, and that would depend upon the agency's present understanding of the benefit of the documents it is producing. It may be a challenge for some agencies and a very quick activity for others. REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN, regarding the list that would be created by HB 187, asked whether it is the sponsor's intention that this report would be added to that list at some point in the distant future. MR. HARVEY answered that it likely would. He explained that OMB would act as the compiling body through the budget process; along with asking for draft budgets from each department, OMB would also ask for this list. 4:23:09 PM CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS offered his appreciation for the bill. REPRESENTATIVE KAUFMAN stated that bills like HB 187 are just one slice of many opportunities to implement continuous quality improvement. 4:24:14 PM CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS announced that HB 187 was held over.