Meetings
Transcript: Select text below to play or share a clip
[Brian Collamore (Chair)]: Welcome back to the Senate Committee on Government Operations meeting of Friday, 01/16/2026. My thanks, our thanks to Rick Siegel from Legislative Council for putting a new amendment together. And with his usual speed and expertise, maybe we can look at that and vote on it.
[Rick Siegel (Legislative Counsel)]: High praise, Mr. Chair. Thank you. Well deserved. Rick Siegel, Office of Blips of Counsel. So you're looking at now draft 1.3, which I assume will be posted shortly to the committee webpage. Yep. No changes to page one. The definitions are the same as the walkthrough I gave an hour ago. The change is to page two, and that is to the disclosure requirement. There's discussion about individual disabilities. So couple of conflicts here. There was discussion about bringing in universal design, which is a definition in a federal law and the Assistive Technology Act of '98. I was not comfortable bringing in that definition because there's other requirements in that federal law that would be maybe impossible for someone to comply with. Because it's not just commercials and media. That law is applicable to all technologies beyond
[Brian Collamore (Chair)]: And how? Yeah,
[Rick Siegel (Legislative Counsel)]: there's a lot there. I just didn't feel comfortable. You don't want to pass a law that gets challenged on other grounds besides first amendment. What I've done, and this is open for discussion, we have the phrase average viewer and average listener. If you say that it also must be inclusive in a separate line, it kind of conflicts. So what I've done is I've said easily readable. So the only change is in yellow. In a period of size that is easily readable by the average viewer and inclusive to the greatest extent possible of individuals with disabilities. I don't know how else we get there. Either you get rid of the average viewer and you just say it must be inclusive of people with disabilities, or you use this kind of language, which says you can't just ignore people with disabilities. Sure.
[Brian Collamore (Chair)]: Is there something else on line 11?
[Rick Siegel (Legislative Counsel)]: The other chain, it's the same language. Okay. Including text or audio, again, that was going to be the language, but then you're going against the average viewer. So, if you wanna be specific about easily heard by the average listener, or you say understood.
[Tanya Vyhovsky (Vice Chair)]: But wouldn't easily be heard by those with visual, with disabilities. I mean, that's the whole idea of universal design is it's accessible to everyone. So if people who are hard of hearing or people who have visual disabilities can see and hear it, then so can the average people.
[Brian Collamore (Chair)]: That's sort of the whole So then you
[Rick Siegel (Legislative Counsel)]: should, yeah, then I'd recommend you get rid of the
[Tanya Vyhovsky (Vice Chair)]: I, that's Average. Yes. That would be my preference. Okay. Like the text of disclosure shouts
[Rick Siegel (Legislative Counsel)]: So I see the slide here, right, that Yeah.
[Alison Clarkson (Member)]: Well
[Rick Siegel (Legislative Counsel)]: You would just remove that easily readable and inclusive.
[Alison Clarkson (Member)]: Why can't you just say easily readable?
[Rick Siegel (Legislative Counsel)]: Well, that's the original language, but
[Brian Collamore (Chair)]: the Oh.
[Rick Siegel (Legislative Counsel)]: The the the issue is that and I talked to, you know, this if you're requiring text to be on an image, how do you ensure someone with very low vision has a disability, a vision disability, is how do Easily treat readable means it has to be easily readable to us. By the average.
[Brian Collamore (Chair)]: Average
[Tanya Vyhovsky (Vice Chair)]: viewer. The average viewer excludes people with disabilities. I
[Brian Collamore (Chair)]: don't think it does this.
[Rebecca "Becca" White (Member)]: I I guess I I I see what you're saying. I think it actually is I think there's a difference between easily readable to the average viewer. I think that makes sense. But then when I think of inclusive to the greatest extent possible for individuals with disabilities, it is like having it in the text. You know, like, know how they have the special things at the bottom of a post where it's like, in this image, there is the following things. Like a red house with a blue ball. That's what's designed for folks who if they're having it text to audio.
[Tanya Vyhovsky (Vice Chair)]: But that's not what we're talking about here. We're talking about the disclosure needing to be put in a font that is legible to people with disabilities. Yes. That does include the average viewer. If it's legible to people with disabilities, it will also be legible to the average viewer.
[Rebecca "Becca" White (Member)]: Yes, but I think this is going, Yes. I agree with you. But I also think this is going above and beyond. It's also saying that you would have to have other things besides readability taken into account.
[Rick Siegel (Legislative Counsel)]: The First Amendment also comes back into play here, because you're restricting speech and if you're requiring the person making the video, audio, whatever it is, to be so specific on how you want the message to be delivered, that's also Yeah,
[Brian Collamore (Chair)]: it's also limiting.
[Rick Siegel (Legislative Counsel)]: The specify more how to do it. But I'm willing to hear this is not what committee wants. I'm trying to thread a needle as what's possible and what's not possible.
[Brian Collamore (Chair)]: Oh, thank you. So let me ask you this in response to Senator White's statement. I'm of a certain age and have trouble at some point without glasses seeing a particular size font. As we But I consider myself an average reader. I'm not impaired in any way as long as I have these things on. So I like the way that she phrased that, that that would include people that don't have necessarily a disability visually, but that as the years progress need help. Some help. But for those that do have a visual disability or an audio disability, there should be provisions made to, to include that. That's all I'm saying.
[Rick Siegel (Legislative Counsel)]: I think this language does that. I do too. But I'm I'm willing to to make a change if you aren't happy with it. I I I don't know how to make an image be visible to someone who is blind.
[Rebecca "Becca" White (Member)]: Because you would have it as a text caption underneath so that when they have a recording read to them, it describes what's important.
[Alison Clarkson (Member)]: They're gonna have that on television. They're not gonna have braille on the television. Mean, it's just
[Tanya Vyhovsky (Vice Chair)]: about the disclosure. It's not about the image. It's not about the video. It's just about the disclosure. And so what I was saying to Rick in the hallway is what I know from my work with the disability rights community is that there are two particular fonts that are known to be more universally readable. It's sans serif 12 and Arial 14. Mhmm. We can't explicitly say that. I don't think that you have to use one of these fonts. Right. But what we can incorporate that is and that's where I was getting at universal design because that's sort of the universally readable font. And, of course, it's not readable to someone who's blind. But someone who might have a certain type of visual processing disorder can read that because all of the letters are the same size and take up the same space, so it doesn't interfere with the way they process visual information in the same way. And I don't I I don't know that I care. I mean, I do care. Mhmm. Let me I absolutely care. And I think getting the language right is important. I'm not entirely sure. Like and and I would support removing the average viewer because if it's inclusive of people with disabilities, the average viewer would also be able to read it. Like, that's the whole idea. It's sort of like going to a physical limitation. If you, if it snows and you shovel the ramp, everyone who uses a wheelchair can get in, but so can all the people that walk, because they can also use the ramp. But if you only shoveled stairs, then the people who can walk can get in. But so so and and that's sort of the whole idea here is that by making it somewhat universally accessible, it broadens the the scope that Oh,
[Alison Clarkson (Member)]: I hear I hear you on that.
[Tanya Vyhovsky (Vice Chair)]: And I don't know if removing the average viewer from this text substantively changes what it does.
[Rick Siegel (Legislative Counsel)]: I think it gets the maker of the content less direction, actually.
[Tanya Vyhovsky (Vice Chair)]: Okay. Then fine.
[Alison Clarkson (Member)]: I'm actually I would go over it, but I don't wanna I worry that we're overthinking this. I I
[Tanya Vyhovsky (Vice Chair)]: I think it's fine. I think this is fine. I mean, it's given the time constraint and given the challenge, I just, I think we often forget to make sure that we are as inclusive as possible.
[Brian Collamore (Chair)]: Kinda hear you. I don't remember talking about this either, well, last year when we were doing the bill. I Did we?
[Rick Siegel (Legislative Counsel)]: Yeah. You did.
[Alison Clarkson (Member)]: Why didn't we It's like you you did.
[Rick Siegel (Legislative Counsel)]: There was pitch and pace. There there was
[Alison Clarkson (Member)]: a Yes.
[Brian Collamore (Chair)]: Oh, I remember. Yeah.
[Rick Siegel (Legislative Counsel)]: That's it. It's it's it's there, but there was more discussion about that. Okay.
[Rebecca "Becca" White (Member)]: Yeah. So And I teeny.
[Rick Siegel (Legislative Counsel)]: I just deleted the comma. So this is now 1.4. Sorry. This is 1.4.
[Alison Clarkson (Member)]: Yeah. Exactly. And the perimeter's error is not a native new
[Brian Collamore (Chair)]: draft. No.
[Tanya Vyhovsky (Vice Chair)]: But I I think it's not exactly how I would want to do it, but nothing about this bill is exactly how I would want to do it, so let's go.
[Alison Clarkson (Member)]: I think it's an improvement over what we have. I think you're right, and for that, I'm grateful.
[Rick Siegel (Legislative Counsel)]: It's gonna be 1.4. That's a comma change, and this should make it I'm gonna send her a
[Brian Collamore (Chair)]: new question So 1.4. Any other questions, concerns?
[Alison Clarkson (Member)]: And we'll see how it plays out because, of course, we will get it back if it doesn't. True. I mean, you know, it'll come back to this committee.
[Brian Collamore (Chair)]: Yeah. Then we go to a conference.
[Alison Clarkson (Member)]: No. No. I mean, after after it goes into Please, Joe.
[Brian Collamore (Chair)]: Well, you know, I said
[Rick Siegel (Legislative Counsel)]: I can't. Go back and forth twice.
[Brian Collamore (Chair)]: Yeah. I'm What I meant once
[Alison Clarkson (Member)]: it gets enacted and is in play. Oh. We will get feedback about how
[Brian Collamore (Chair)]: to Yeah. Yeah.
[Rebecca "Becca" White (Member)]: Mister chair, I would move that we I haven't done this in a bit. I've passed that we Adopt. Adopt the amendment draft number 1.4 for S 23.
[Brian Collamore (Chair)]: Okay. Any further discussion? If not, the clerk can call the roll.
[Rick Siegel (Legislative Counsel)]: Okay. Senator Clarkson.
[Alison Clarkson (Member)]: Yes.
[Brian Collamore (Chair)]: John Morley. Yes. Senator Baldwin. Senator Vahovsky? Yes. Senator White? Yes. Senator Collamore? Yes. 5 00. Okay. I'll get it up to Melissa, and so it'll be on notice Tuesday and on the action calendar probably Wednesday. All readable? Perfect. And you're reporting it? Yep. Thank you. Good work. Hey. Week two You have limited.
[Alison Clarkson (Member)]: Week two when we passed out a bill. Yeah. Yeah. And then it to a bill that Hey. We already
[Tanya Vyhovsky (Vice Chair)]: You know? Hurry up. We're done with this.
[Brian Collamore (Chair)]: Yes. For what? Is there anything there anything else for the committee this week?
[Tanya Vyhovsky (Vice Chair)]: No.
[Brian Collamore (Chair)]: Okay. If not, we'll adjourn for the week and see all of you on Tuesday. I'll wait for