ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
SENATE STATE AFFAIRS STANDING COMMITTEE
April 3, 2012
9:02 a.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Senator Bill Wielechowski, Chair
Senator Joe Paskvan, Vice Chair
Senator Albert Kookesh
Senator Kevin Meyer
Senator Cathy Giessel
MEMBERS ABSENT
All members present
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
SENATE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 20
Relating to Eielson Air Force Base and the strategic importance
of retaining the 18th F-16 Aggressor Squadron in the Fairbanks
North Star Borough.
- MOVED SJR 20 OUT OF COMMITTEE
HOUSE BILL NO. 205
"An Act relating to state and public entity procurement,
including the State Procurement Code, procurement preferences,
and contract awards; relating to the meaning of 'Alaska bidder';
and providing for an effective date."
- HEARD & HELD
HOUSE BILL NO. 169
"An Act relating to the review of proposed regulations by the
Legislative Affairs Agency; and providing for an effective
date."
- SCHEDULED BUT NOT HEARD
COMMITTEE SUBSTITUTE FOR HOUSE BILL NO. 216(FIN)
"An Act relating to fiscal notes for bills directing or
resulting in the adoption, amendment, or repeal of regulations,
and to the notice required for the proposed adoption, amendment,
or repeal of a regulation; and providing for an effective date."
- HEARD & HELD
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
BILL: SJR 20
SHORT TITLE: RELOCATION OF 18TH F-16 SQUADRON
SPONSOR(s): STATE AFFAIRS BY REQUEST
03/28/12 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
03/28/12 (S) STA
04/03/12 (S) STA AT 9:00 AM BUTROVICH 205
BILL: HB 205
SHORT TITLE: PUBLIC PROCUREMENT
SPONSOR(s): FAIRCLOUGH
03/23/11 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
03/23/11 (H) STA, FIN
03/29/11 (H) STA RPT 6DP 1NR
03/29/11 (H) DP: PETERSEN, SEATON, GRUENBERG,
KELLER, P.WILSON, LYNN
03/29/11 (H) NR: JOHANSEN
03/29/11 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 106
03/29/11 (H) Moved Out of Committee
03/29/11 (H) MINUTE(STA)
04/09/11 (H) FIN RPT 9DP 1NR
04/09/11 (H) DP: FAIRCLOUGH, GUTTENBERG, T.WILSON,
EDGMON, JOULE, NEUMAN, COSTELLO,
DOOGAN,
04/09/11 (H) THOMAS
04/09/11 (H) NR: STOLTZE
04/09/11 (H) FIN AT 1:00 PM HOUSE FINANCE 519
04/09/11 (H) Moved Out of Committee
04/09/11 (H) MINUTE(FIN)
04/11/11 (H) TRANSMITTED TO (S)
04/11/11 (H) VERSION: HB 205
04/12/11 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
04/12/11 (S) STA, FIN
04/03/12 (S) STA AT 9:00 AM BUTROVICH 205
BILL: HB 216
SHORT TITLE: REGULATIONS: INFORMATIVE SUMMARY/BILLS
SPONSOR(s): P.WILSON
03/30/11 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
03/30/11 (H) STA, JUD
04/12/11 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 106
04/12/11 (H) Heard & Held
04/12/11 (H) MINUTE(STA)
01/19/12 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 106
01/19/12 (H) Moved CSHB 216(STA) Out of Committee
01/19/12 (H) MINUTE(STA)
01/20/12 (H) STA RPT CS(STA) 2DP 4AM
01/20/12 (H) DP: P.WILSON, LYNN
01/20/12 (H) AM: KELLER, GRUENBERG, SEATON, PETERSEN
01/23/12 (H) FIN REFERRAL ADDED AFTER JUD
01/30/12 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120
01/30/12 (H) Heard & Held
01/30/12 (H) MINUTE(JUD)
02/03/12 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120
02/03/12 (H) Heard & Held
02/03/12 (H) MINUTE(JUD)
02/10/12 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120
02/10/12 (H) Heard & Held
02/10/12 (H) MINUTE(JUD)
02/13/12 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120
02/13/12 (H) Moved CSHB 216(JUD) Out of Committee
02/13/12 (H) MINUTE(JUD)
02/15/12 (H) JUD RPT CS(JUD) NT 6DP
02/15/12 (H) DP: LYNN, GRUENBERG, KELLER, THOMPSON,
HOLMES, GATTO
02/22/12 (H) FIN AT 1:30 PM HOUSE FINANCE 519
02/22/12 (H) Moved CSHB 216(FIN) Out of Committee
02/22/12 (H) MINUTE(FIN)
02/24/12 (H) FIN RPT CS(FIN) NT 9DP
02/24/12 (H) DP: FAIRCLOUGH, GARA, T.WILSON, NEUMAN,
COSTELLO, EDGMON, DOOGAN, STOLTZE,
02/24/12 (H) THOMAS
03/02/12 (H) TRANSMITTED TO (S)
03/02/12 (H) VERSION: CSHB 216(FIN)
03/05/12 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
03/05/12 (S) STA, JUD
04/03/12 (S) STA AT 9:00 AM BUTROVICH 205
WITNESS REGISTER
LUKE HOPKINS, Mayor
Fairbanks North Star Borough
Fairbanks, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of SJR 20.
DOUG ISSACSON, Mayor
North Pole, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of SJR 20.
JIM DODSON, President/CEO
Fairbanks Economic Development Corporation
Fairbanks, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of SJR 20.
REPRESENTATIVE ANNA FAIRCLOUGH
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Sponsor of HB 205.
LAURA PIERRE, Staff
Representative Anna Fairclough
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Explained the sections of HB 205 on behalf
of the sponsor.
VERN JONES, Chief Procurement Officer
Division of General Services
Department of Administration
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions related to HB 205.
SCOTT THORSON, representing himself
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in favor of HB 205.
REPRESENTATIVE PEGGY WILSON
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Introduced HB 216 as sponsor of the bill.
STEVE WEAVER, Assistant Attorney General
Legislations & Regulations Section
Department of Law
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions related to HB 216.
TERRY BANNISTER, Attorney,
Legislative Legal and Research Services Division
Legislative Affairs Agency
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 216.
JANA VARATI, representing herself
Nome, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 216.
NANCY MCGUIRE, Owner
Nome Nugget
Nome, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 216.
ACTION NARRATIVE
9:02:14 AM
CHAIR BILL WIELECHOWSKI called the Senate State Affairs Standing
Committee meeting to order at 9:02 a.m. Present at the call to
order were Senators Giessel, Meyer, Paskvan, and Chair
Wielechowski. Senator Kookesh arrived shortly thereafter.
SJR 20-RELOCATION OF 18TH F-16 SQUADRON
9:02:19 AM
CHAIR WIELECHOWSKI announced that the first bill before the
committee would be SJR 20, which urges Congress and the
Department of Defense to reconsider the transfer of F-16s from
Eielson Air Force Base and recognized the strategic importance
of the base. Recently, the Air Force announced that it was
recommending the relocation of the 18th F-16 Aggressor Squadron
from Eielson Air Force Base to Joint Base Elmendorf-Richardson.
This would reduce the operational capacity of Eielson, making it
vulnerable to potential base closure.
SENATOR PASKVAN, as sponsor of SJR 20, shared the reason for the
bill. The United States Air Force has recommended the relocation
of the 18th F-16 Aggressor Squadron from Eielson Air Force Base
to Joint Base Elmendorf-Richardson. He suggested that the
transfer of the F-16 would be detrimental to the state of Alaska
and have a dramatic impact on the Fairbanks economy, as well as
to all of Interior Alaska. It will reduce operational capacities
at Eielson, making it vulnerable for future base realignment and
closure (BRAC) rounds.
He related that the benefits and strategic importance of Eielson
Air Force Base, now and into the future, far outweighs any
negligible savings by the transfer of the F-16 squadron. Eielson
is at the forefront of protecting the United States' interest in
the Pacific Theater and serves a critical function in
reinforcing the region. It helps to secure important pipeline
infrastructure, including the Trans-Alaska Pipeline System, and
also the refineries that are located in interior Alaska. The
pipeline provides a significant portion of the nation's energy
needs. Eielson has adjacent access to the largest joint air and
land training range in the nation. This area's minimal airspace
congestion is well suited to perform operations for unmanned
vehicles and live-fire exercises. The 21st Century military
capabilities are going towards unmanned vehicles.
He continued to say that Eielson connects to the largest
unrestricted air space in the United States. The base has large
fuel storage capacity and has a runway capable of handling the
military's largest aircraft year round. Movement of the 18th
Aggressor Squadron puts Eielson at risk. The base has served
America's needs for decades and because of its location, should
continue to serve America's interests. The base has access to
unique training grounds, fuel storage, ample housing, and
provides critical support for the joint training exercises.
He stated that he speaks as a lifelong resident of Alaska and of
Fairbanks when he says he understands the significance of
Eielson Air Force Base to the communities of Interior Alaska and
to America's security interest. During 2005, the last BRAC
round, the strategic and economic importance of Eielson was
proved. He encouraged members of the committee to support the
resolution, which seeks to remind the President and the Air
Force that the F-16's should stay at Eielson Air Force Base.
9:06:54 AM
SENATOR KOOKESH joined the committee.
At-ease from 9:07 a.m. to 9:08 a.m.
CHAIR WIELECHOWSKI opened public testimony.
LUKE HOPKINS, Mayor, Fairbanks North Star Borough, testified in
support of SJR 20. He questioned the basis for the proposed
savings in the Department of Defense budget because of the
movement of the F-16's from Eielson. He noted that Fairbanks was
taking steps to work with consultants locally and in Washington,
D.C., to determine if there really would be a savings.
He spoke of the draft EIS for the Joint Pacific Alaska Range
Complex which shows that Eielson is vital to future training
sessions. He requested that the committee support the
resolution.
9:10:49 AM
DOUG ISSACSON, Mayor, North Pole, testified in support of SJR
20. He agreed with the sponsor and with Mayor Hopkins. He added
that Eielson is expanding its mission and is in the middle of
adding new housing and new facilities, so it seems odd that a
reduction is being considered. He noted support for the military
by the surrounding communities.
JIM DODSON, President/CEO, Fairbanks Economic Development
Corporation, testified in support of SJR 20. He related his part
in past BRAC preventative measures when, in 2005, the BRAC
Commission determined that the financial information being used
by the Air Force was inaccurate. He maintained that the same
thing was happening today. He voiced agreement with the sponsor
statement.
9:14:08 AM
CHAIR WIELECHOWSKI closed public testimony.
SENATOR PASKVAN thanked the testifiers for speaking on the
resolution.
SENATOR PASKVAN moved to report SJR 20, version M, from
committee with individual recommendations and the attached zero
fiscal note. There being no objection, SJR 20 was reported from
the Senate State Affairs Standing Committee.
HB 205-PUBLIC PROCUREMENT
9:15:37 AM
CHAIR WIELECHOWSKI announced that HB 205 was before the
committee. He said HB 205 addresses preferences in the state's
procurement code; it consolidates some preferences and sets
standards for how they accumulate.
REPRESENTATIVE ANNA FAIRCLOUGH, sponsor of HB 205, introduced
the bill. She related that the bill changes and streamlines the
procurement code to ensure consistency in application of the law
resulting in a more understandable, efficient procurement
process. It eliminates a seldom-used preference for employers
with disabilities, it consolidates procurement preferences under
one statute, and it clarifies which preferences are cumulative
and those that may not be combined. It makes application of
preferences uniform. Currently, the preferences do not contain
the same language so they must be applied differently.
LAURA PIERRE, staff to Representative Anna Fairclough, explained
the sections of HB 205 on behalf of the sponsor.
CHAIR WIELECHOWSKI requested information about the substantive
changes.
MS. PIERRE described Section 1 as the renumbering of the
preferences.
CHAIR WIELECHOWSKI asked why the numbers changed.
VERN JONES, Chief Procurement Officer, Division of General
Services, Department of Administration, testified that the bill
aims to pull the preferences out of the various sections in
statute and put them all into one section and make the language
uniform so they are more easily applied.
CHAIR WIELECHOWSKI summarized that preferences are scattered
throughout the statutes and the bill consolidated them into one
section.
MS. PIERRE explained Section 2 amends the local agriculture
preference to grant a 7 percent cost preference to the
qualifying bid, rather than to the low bid, making it consistent
with other procurement preferences.
CHAIR WIELECHOWSKI requested more information.
MS. PIERRE repeated her explanation.
MR. JONES pointed out that the statute is currently written to
say a procurement must be awarded to the bidder that qualifies
for this preference if their bid is within a certain percentage
of the low bid.
9:20:03 AM
CHAIR WIELECHOWSKI asked how the bidder qualifies.
MR. JONES explained that the bidder, in this case, qualifies
when producing a local agricultural or fisheries product.
CHAIR WIELECHOWSKI asked if the new bill provides that the
procurement officer would screen bidders for qualifications and
then award a 7 percent preference.
MR. JONES said yes.
SENATOR PASKVAN asked how a qualifying bid is determined.
MR. JONES said he did not understand the question. He offered
that the preference is based on a qualified bid and would be
reduced by 7 percent, instead of figuring out who the low bidder
was.
9:21:25 AM
SENATOR MEYER requested an example of when a procurement officer
would go with a low bid rather than with a qualifying bid.
MR. JONES called that a misnomer because a low bid has not gone
through the bid process to qualify for the 7 percent preference.
SENATOR PASKVAN asked if the award is issued in the amount of
the original bid or with the 7 percent removed.
MR. JONES said it was in the amount of the original bid. He
further explained that the preferences are for evaluation
purposes only.
CHAIR WIELECHOWSKI asked if the bill has the ability to change
the results of procurement.
MR. JONES said it could because the low bid is different than a
bid with a percentage removed resulting in a greater amount.
9:24:17 AM
REPRESENTATIVE FAIRCLOUGH further explained that the purpose of
the section is twofold, to clarify language, but also to ensure
that Alaskan-owned businesses that are harvesting seafood or
agriculture receive a preference because they compete in a
market made up of large suppliers. She gave an example of
lettuce bought for schools.
MS. PIERRE related that Section 3 does the same thing as Section
2, but for local fisheries.
She said that Section 4 would amend the local agriculture and
fisheries preference to not allow a bidder to be granted both
preferences.
CHAIR WIELECHOWSKI requested clarification.
MR. JONES explained that the preferences are duplicative. A
bidder cannot have more than one preference, such as an
agricultural and fisheries preference, as well as an Alaskan
preference.
CHAIR WIELECHOWSKI asked if that is in current law and involves
"stacking".
MR. JONES reported that it has been the division's practice to
not allow stacking of preferences.
SENATOR PASKVAN gave an example of a local agricultural bidder
who would likely elect the 7 percent preference rather than the
Alaskan 5 percent preference.
MR. JONES clarified that the Alaska product preference is a
three-tiered process with a 3 percent, 5 percent, and 7 percent
preference based on the percentage produced or manufactured in
the state. For example, a fisheries product, which is produced
100 percent in Alaska, would get one 7 percent preference, but
not a fisheries product preference, because that would be
duplication.
9:27:50 AM
MS. PIERRE reported that Sections 5-10 are renumbering sections.
She related that Section 11 adds a new section consolidating the
Alaska bidder preference, the Alaska Veterans' preference, and
other preferences formerly at AS 36.30.170(b). The section also
simplifies the qualification for the disability and employment
program preferences, eliminates the seldom-used employers of
people with disabilities preference, and excludes real estate
leases from application of procurement preferences.
CHAIR WIELECHOWSKI requested more information about Section 11.
MR. JONES explained about the three disability-related
preferences, the employment program, the disabled bidder
preference, and the employers of the disabled preference. This
section eliminates the last preference because it is seldom
used. It has only been used by two companies and has benefited
only two people. The remaining two preferences are left in
statute.
SENATOR MEYER asked if there is a cap or a limit to how many
preferences a bidder can receive.
MR. JONES did not know, but thought it might be between 12 to 15
percent. He said it was typically 5 percent, plus an Alaska
preference, or fisheries.
SENATOR MEYER used an example of a road construction bid which
was the high bid, but was awarded the contract due to
preferences totally 15 percent.
MR. JONES said, generally speaking, a road project bid would
receive a 5 percent bidder preference and a 7 percent Alaska
preference to equal a 12 percent total preference.
SENATOR MEYER suggested if the persons hired were disabled, the
bid would qualify for an additional preference.
MR. JONES noted it would be another 7 percent.
SENATOR PASKVAN asked for more information about what type of
work the two companies previously mentioned did in order to
receive the employer of disabled preference.
MR. JONES replied that one firm was a business that offers
office space leases to the state and the other was a
construction firm. He opined that the preference did not make
sense in either case.
SENATOR PASKVAN noted, as currently written, a company that
employs a 100 percent disabled workforce could obtain a lease by
bidding $107,000 and win the bid over another company that bid
$100,000.
MR. JONES said yes, but HB 205 changes that.
9:36:28 AM
REPRESENTATIVE FAIRCLOUGH stated that the reason there are
preferences in this bill is so that the population in Alaska
will benefit. The same is true for disabled preferences that
remain in the bill in order to motivate the hiring of disabled
people.
SENATOR PASKVAN agreed with that intent. He suggested that the
work being done should be connected with the disability, which
is currently not in place in the one preference.
MR. JONES agreed that there is no connection. The employment
program preference, which used to be called a Shelter Workshop,
provides that connection, as does the disabled bidder
preference. The two preferences remaining in the bill do provide
a connection.
9:39:00 AM
REPRESENTATIVE FAIRCLOUGH explained the purpose of Section 11 is
also to clarify the "stackability" of preferences and how the
calculations are done. The complication of having preferences
located throughout statute was confusing.
SENATOR PASKVAN followed up on the example of a 50 percent
disabled workforce and asked if the Department of Administration
was taking any action to remedy the problem of the disabled
person not receiving the benefit. He questioned who the true
beneficiary was.
MR. JONES said part of the issue is that the preference did not
require any benefit to the disabled person, but HB 205
eliminates that problem.
SENATOR PASKVAN agreed with that. He asked if there are other
areas where a front corporation is used to scam Alaskans. The
resolution only focuses on one area.
9:42:48 AM
REPRESENTATIVE FAIRCLOUGH noted that there were other areas in
previous bills, but they were controversial and are not included
in this bill. She used the offerors preference as an example.
She said this bill hopes to reach consensus. She noted wide
support for HB 205 bill from various entities.
SENATOR PASKVAN did remember that controversial bill two years
ago.
MR. JONES noted another important change in Section 11,
subsection (a), where a number of third-party qualifications
that would indicate disability are listed. The current process
requires the disabled person to have a doctor's note in order to
qualify for the preference. HB 205 instead, substitutes third-
party qualifications, such as a Veteran Administration
Disability or Social Security records or state authorities'
determination, for Vocational Rehabilitation to accept.
CHAIR WIELECHOWSKI asked how disability is proved currently.
MR. JONES explained that it is a case-by-case evaluation process
by the Division of Vocational Rehabilitation and requires a
letter from a physician, which is cumbersome.
SENATOR MEYER asked if there is some protection to the state if
a disabled person is injured on the job.
MR. JONES pointed out that the state requires standard insurance
coverage.
SENATOR MEYER gave an example of a crime lab construction bid,
which would be very specialized and technical. He questioned if
a sole source bid could be requested.
MR. JONES replied that would be possible. He noted that there
were stringent requirements for approval of single source bids.
9:48:39 AM
CHAIR WIELECHOWSKI referred to page 7, line 6, and asked if that
information was currently the law, or if temporary disabilities
were allowed preferences under the bill.
MR. JONES said that language was consistent with current
statute.
SENATOR PASKVAN asked if there was any provision in procurement
statutes whereby someone is subject to criminal prosecution for
sham entities.
MR. JONES replied that the Alaska Product Preference does have a
penalty for illegally claiming a preference. There is also a
requirement of good faith in procurement statutes.
SENATOR PASKVAN pointed out that the covenant of good faith and
fair dealing is implied in a contractual civil sense. He thought
he heard no as the answer to criminal prosecution.
MR. JONES understood that fraud is a crime and can be prosecuted
by the attorney general.
SENATOR PASKVAN suggested there was no process for that so it
was meaningless.
SENATOR KOOKESH asked if any shams had been prosecuted.
MR. JONES replied that several times false preferences were
claimed resulting in no contract being awarded.
9:52:34 AM
CHAIR WIELECHOWSKI asked if the current definition of "disabled"
means permanently, totally disabled. He asked if the resolution
changes that.
MR. JONES explained that the definition of disability does not
change. Currently, Vocational Rehabilitation determines who is
disabled and they feel they are not qualified, so the bill
changes who can determine that the person is disabled.
CHAIR WIELECHOWSKI asked if the standard is now "permanently
disabled" according to Vocational Rehabilitation.
MR. JONES said yes.
CHAIR WIELECHOWSKI asked if it was a "total disability"
standard.
MR. JONES explained how Vocational Rehabilitation determines the
definition of disability; the individual has some type of bar to
employment. He said he did not know what standard was used.
CHAIR WIELECHOWSKI did not want to set a higher standard of
disability.
REPRESENTATIVE FAIRCLOUGH understood that the resolution uses
the current standard but relieves the Division of Vocational
Rehabilitation from determining the standard. People with
disabilities have already qualified under one of the avenues
included in HB 205. The resolution removes a duplication of
process. She offered to find out more about the standard used.
CHAIR WIELECHOWSKI noted he was looking at the workers'
compensation definition and was looking for further information
regarding the definition of disabled.
9:56:32 AM
MS. PIERRE explained Section 12, which modifies the use of local
forest products statute to grant a seven percent cost preference
to the qualifying bid rather than to the low bid. Section 13
clarifies in statute which preferences are cumulative and which
cannot be combined. Section 14 moves the definition for "Alaska
bidder" to a new section. Sections 15 and 16 are renumbering
sections. Section 17 repeals statute establishing the veteran
preference because it was moved to another section. It also
repeals employment program language and relationship to other
preferences. Section 18 clarifies the application of the
Procurement Act to pending solicitations during transition
period. Section 19 is language making the Procurement Act
effective immediately.
9:59:19 AM
CHAIR WIELECHOWSKI asked if any preferences are new or amended.
MR. JONES replied that none are new. The bill exempts lease of
office space real estate leases from preferences and makes
changes to third-party qualification for the disabled
preferences.
CHAIR WIELECHOWSKI asked if Section 11 (c) is in existing
statute.
MR. JONES said it was. A domestic insurer does not currently
have to obtain an Alaska business license, so in order to keep
the preference consistent for them, subsection (c) would exempt
them from having to have a business license; however, they would
still have to qualify for all the other elements of the Alaska
bidder preference.
CHAIR WIELECHOWSKI opened public testimony.
10:01:12 AM
SCOTT THORSON, representing himself, testified in favor of HB
205. He spoke from a small business owner's perspective about
the advantages of HB 205. It makes doing business with the state
easier and more efficient. He said he appreciated the benefits
to locally-owned businesses.
CHAIR WIELECHOWSKI closed public testimony.
REPRESENTATIVE FAIRCLOUGH thanked the committee for hearing the
bill.
CHAIR WIELECHOWSKI said he would hold HB 205 in committee.
HB 216-REGULATIONS: INFORMATIVE SUMMARY/BILLS
10:05:03 AM
CHAIR WIELECHOWSKI announced that the next bill before the
committee would be HB 216, which would set expectations for
completion of regulations and make explanations of regulations
clearly understandable in "plain English."
REPRESENTATIVE PEGGY WILSON, sponsor of HB 216, introduced the
bill. She related that bill deals with two frustrating issues,
regulations not being written in a timely manner and regulations
not being easily understood. She used HB 110 as an example. The
bill would ensure that regulations are adopted in a timely
manner and are explained in plain English.
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON explained that Section 1 will ensure that
state regulations are completed and adopted in a timely manner.
Section 2 will ensure that all new regulations and changes to
current regulations are accompanied by a brief description in
plain English.
She listed the key points in HB 216. Section 1 - the deadline
for adopting, amending, or repealing regulations is set by the
department or agency, not by the legislature. The timeframe will
be listed on the fiscal note by the department. If the deadline
is not met, the department must report to the Regulation Review
Committee. State boards and commissions are exempt from this
provision except for the Alaska Housing Finance Corporation, the
Alaska Industrial Development & Export Authority, the Alaska
Energy Authority, the Alaska Public Offices Commission, and the
Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation Commission.
She reported that in Section 2, the brief description of the
regulation must accompany all notices furnished on paper,
through the mail, via email, or on public notices. Agencies do
not have to include the brief description in newspapers, or
trade or industry publications, but must include a reference as
to where the brief description can be found. Section 2 also
makes it clear that individuals cannot take action against
agencies if the brief description was misunderstood.
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON related that Sections 3 and 4 state that
these requirements apply only to bills that are filed after the
effective date of July 1, 2012.
10:11:16 AM
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON explained that the fiscal note states that
no cost is anticipated as a result of Section 1, and the fiscal
impact resulting from Section 2 is expected to be minimal.
She stated intent of the bill to improve public participation in
the political process because people will be able to understand
regulations. It will also make it easier for legislators to
evaluate whether the intent of the statute is implemented in
regulations.
SENATOR MEYER asked for the departments' opinion of the bill.
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON replied that the departments have not
stated any objections to the bill. The Department of Law had
some objections, but the bill was changed to address those
issues.
SENATOR MEYER asked what the repercussions were if a deadline is
not met.
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON reiterated that the department would have
to report to the Regulations Review Committee to explain why the
deadline was not met and set a new deadline.
10:13:17 AM
STEVE WEAVER, Assistant Attorney General, Legislations &
Regulations Section, Department of Law (DOL), answered questions
related to HB 216. He explained DOL's part in changing the
original version of the bill. At this point DOL has no problems
with the bill.
CHAIR WIELECHOWSKI asked how the "plain English" requirement
would work on a complicated topic.
MR. WEAVER agreed that some bills may be more complicated. He
opined that the sponsor's concern was the overuse of "jargon"
and lack of common terms.
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON envisioned, for example, simple language
used in place of statue numbers. She provided several examples.
10:16:47 AM
TERRY BANNISTER, Attorney, Legislative Legal and Research
Services Division, Legislative Affairs Agency, testified on HB
216. She stated that all previous problems with the bill had
been cleaned up.
JANA VARATI, representing herself, testified in support of HB
216. She spoke of the regional newspaper called the Nome Nugget.
She appreciated the intent of HB 216. She questioned why the
bill does not require notices of brief descriptions to be
displayed in newspapers. She suggested that be included in the
bill.
10:21:04 AM
NANCY MCGUIRE, owner of the Nome Nugget, testified in support of
HB 216. She opined that the regulations should be published in
newspapers in order to better inform the public.
CHAIR WIELECHOWSKI closed public testimony.
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON reported that no notification requirements
were changed by the bill.
CHAIR WIELECHOWSKI asked if newspapers were included.
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON reported that newspapers were eliminated.
MR. WEAVER reported that the requirements were not changed.
Public notices are still required to be published in newspapers
and on-line, as well as sent to news agencies. The only item
addressed in the bill is the accompanying brief description.
CHAIR WIELECHOWSKI held HB 216 in committee.
10:25:55 AM
There being no further business to come before the committee,
Chair Wielechowski adjourned the Senate State Affairs Standing
Committee at 10:25 a.m.