Date: 08/17/2016
Location: HCR 0112

Votes: View-->	Action Taken:
Representative Thurlow moved to add an agenda item	PASS

10:31 AM -- 6. Report Database


10:32 AM -- Prior to beginning the discussion of the Report Database, Jennifer Gilroy, Revisor of Statutes, asked to speak to the Committee. She advised the Committee that, as the Revisor of Statutes, she does not have the authority, when a court has ruled a law unconstitutional, to take a law off the books, and thus laws that have been ruled unconstitutional remain in the statutes. Recently, the practice has been to add editor's notes indicating this ruling, though this has not always been the practice and there may be unconstitutional statutes that do not have an explanatory note. Her office is in the process of going through the statutes and correcting this discrepancy. She added that it takes an action by the General Assembly to remove any law from statute and mentioned a Legisource article she had written on this issue and that this issue is one that many states face--that some remove the statutes, though she does not feel that she has the authority.
She continued that she expected there would be overlap between what the Committee does and what she feels is appropriate for the Revisor's Bill. Her thought was, if a bill is proposed to repeal obsolete provisions, which she technically has the authority to do, she would expect that the Committee would take on some of those bills.
Lastly, she discussed the importance of the amending clauses in the Committee's bills--that they are the direction to the Publication Team and the Enrolling Room as to what the bill is going to look like, in terms of small caps and strike type. She pointed out the differences between an amending clause that relocates a section of statute (in the bill, the text is in regular case and any changes to the statute are shown in small caps and strike type) and an amending clause that repeals and reenactss a section of statute (in which case the text would be shown in all small caps, making it more difficult to see if any changes had been made from the original text). She pointed out that deciding on which amending clause to use is a strategic decision that legislators and drafters should discuss together.
Senator Steadman then added that he hoped to see the bill on the Commission on Family Medicine as a relocate with amendments so that there's very little small caps letters and it doesn't look like the Committee is creating a new commission and that any clean-up of the statute is easy to track.
Chairperson Moreno added that a repeal and reenact could potentially be a violation of the Holbert Amendment.
A discussion with committee members and Jennifer Gilroy, Revisor of Statues, ensued regarding amending clauses

10:41 AM -- Susan Liddle, Legislative Council (LCS), testified before the Committee about a database maintained by the LCS that tracks reports that various agencies are required to deliver to the General Assembly. The database was created because there wasn't consistency in how the reports were being delivered (hard copies delivered in mailboxes of individual members, delivered to LCS to distribute, etc.) The issue was that intended recipients were not receiving the reports. She added that several years ago, the General Assembly passed a bill that reports must be submitted directly to the LCS. Some reports have a defined frequency, a one-time report or prepared annually, and some of the reports have specified repeal dates though most do not. A law was passed in 1996 that established a review process for reports wherein committees had a schedule to review reporting requirements that fell under their oversight; e.g. the Education Committee reviewed the reports they were statutorily required to receive. The law stated that any reports that either the executive or judicial branch was required to deliver to the General Assembly--those prior to July of 1996 would be reviewed. After this review cycle, a bill was passed stating that any requirement for a report to be made to the General Assembly expires on the day after the third anniversary of the date on which the first report was due, unless the General Assembly decides to extend the requirement.
The LCS tracks approximately 387 active statutorily required reports in their database; some have future repeal dates, though most do not and thus have reported for much longer than the required three years. She suggested that this was an issue the Committee could undertake.
Representative Thurlow shared his appreciation for the LCS's work and the fact that the reports are electronic but noted that, after having gone into the database and read some of the reports, he found the information contained in them wasn't needed. He said that, for good government's sake, he'd wants to help create processes to find needed changes. To remedy this issue, he suggested a bill to repeal many of the reports or repeal the 1996 law that says the reports have to end.
Representative Arndt asked, of the 387 reports, how many were being generated that, according to statute, were no longer required? Neither Ms. Forrestal or Ms. Liddle had the exact number, but Ms. Forrestal added that there may be disagreement among members of the General Assembly about the reports they would like to continue receiving.
Senator Steadman said that in the past year or two he had noticed boilerplate paragraphs being inserted into bills that exempted reporting requirements from the 1996 law. He asked if there were pre-existing reports where the exception language should be added by statute, which would entail adding language to the statute. He suggested that an omnibus bill could invite controversy. He asked about the solution to the problem, whether the Committee should repeal some reporting requirements while including the exception paragraph on others or whether a process should be developed to bring together stakeholders to discuss the reporting requirements.
Ms. Forrestal explained that current drafting practice was to insert the exception language or put an absolute repeal date into statute.
Representative Thurlow added that most of the hard work of researching the reports had been done because he and Ms. Forrestal had been working on a similar bill in the previous session. He suggested sharing the bill with the affected departments to invite comment. He stated that his preference would be to be liberal in removing report requirements unless a stakeholder objected.
Ms. Forrestal informed the Committee that in previous years, when all education bills would go to the education committee, drafters would repeal reporting requirements except when a member of the Committee asked for them to stay in place.
Senator Tate said he interpreted the issue as reports could continue to be produced by the executive branch at their own discretion, although the law no longer required them.
Ms. Forrestal added that some agencies might continue to submit the reports because it is not specifically stated in their organic statute that they only had to complete these reports for three years.
Senator Steadman raised the point that the 1996 law required reports to expire and another law, in 2003, required some reports to continue on in perpetuity, there's a conflict between statutes, and thus the more recent law should be controlling. This presents an ambiguity that should be resolved. He reiterated that he thinks the issue is appropriate for the Committee and a worthwhile undertaking. He suggested that because the task to make these changes would be difficult, that it might be better to break the bill up into smaller pieces and also noted that many of the reports included in the LCS database are also sent to the Joint Budget Committee and that JBC staff should be asked for input about the value of the reports that could potentially be repealed in a future bill.
Representative Thurlow wondered if the bill could be broken down into which committee it would be sent to, which would allow for another layer of vetting of the reporting requirements.
Ms. Liddle reiterated that her office has no position on the validity of the reports.
After a discussion of what the motion should be, Senator Holbert asked Ms. Forrestal if instead of presenting a bill draft for the next committee hearing, if staff would prefer to present research on the reports and potential impacts.
Senator Steadman asked Ms. Liddle if it would be possible to arrange the reports by committee of reference.

BILL:	6. Report Database
TIME:	10:56:43 AM
MOVED:	Thurlow
MOTION:	Representative Thurlow moved to add an agenda item for the October meeting to request that Legislative Council present information from the report database organized by committee of reference. The motion passed on a vote of 8-0.
SECONDED:	Tate
		VOTE
	Arndt	Yes
	Dore	Yes
	Holbert	Yes
	Kerr	Yes
	Steadman	Yes
	Tate	Yes
	Thurlow	Yes
	(None), (None)
	Moreno	Yes
FINAL YES: 8 NO: 0 EXC: 0 ABS: 0 FINAL ACTION: PASS