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 Segal 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 (Office of 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
[Brian Collamore (Chair)]: page
[Rick Siegel (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: two, and that is to the disclosure requirement. There's discussion about individual disabilities. So, a 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. It's not just commercials and media. That law is applicable to all kinds of technologies beyond
[Brian Collamore (Chair)]: And how? Yeah,
[Rick Siegel (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: there's a lot there. I feel comfortable, and 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, and if you say that it also must be inclusive in a separate line, you know, it kinda conflict. So what I've done is I've said easily readable. So the only change is in yellow. In 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 (Office of 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. If you want to be specific about easily heard by the average listener Or you say understood.
[Rebecca "Becca" White (Member)]: But wouldn't easily 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. That's sort of the whole idea. Yeah.
[Rick Siegel (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Then you I'd recommend you get rid
[Rebecca "Becca" White (Member)]: of the I that's Average. Yes. That would be my preference. Okay. Like the text of disclosure shadows
[Rick Siegel (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: in I the see the slide here, right, that Yeah.
[Rebecca "Becca" White (Member)]: Well
[Rick Siegel (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: You would just remove that easily readable and inclusive.
[Rebecca "Becca" White (Member)]: Why can't you just say easily readable?
[Rick Siegel (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Well, that's the original language, but the issue is that and I talked to, you know, if you're requiring text to get an image, how to ensure someone with very low vision has a disability, a vision disability? Easily readable means it has to be easily readable to By the average
[Rebecca "Becca" White (Member)]: The
[Brian Collamore (Chair)]: average viewer.
[Rebecca "Becca" White (Member)]: The average viewer excludes people with disabilities. I don't think it does this.
[Tanya Vyhovsky (Vice Chair)]: 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. Do 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.
[Brian Collamore (Chair)]: Mhmm.
[Tanya Vyhovsky (Vice Chair)]: Like a red house with
[Brian Collamore (Chair)]: a blue
[Tanya Vyhovsky (Vice Chair)]: ball. That's what's designed for folks who, if they're having it text to audio.
[Rebecca "Becca" White (Member)]: 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. That does include the average viewer. If it's legible to people with disabilities, it will also be legible to the average viewer.
[Tanya Vyhovsky (Vice Chair)]: Yes, but I think this is going Yes, I agree with you. But I also think this is going above and beyond. It also saying that you would have to have other things besides readability
[Rebecca "Becca" White (Member)]: to take it into account.
[Rick Siegel (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: The First Amendment also comes back into play here because you're restricting speech and you 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
[Rebecca "Becca" White (Member)]: You also eliminate.
[Rick Siegel (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Right. It's the more you specify how to do it. But I'm willing to hear this is not what committee wants. I'm trying to, again, thread a needle as what's possible and what's not possible. Oh, thank you. So
[Brian Collamore (Chair)]: 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. 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, but 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 (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I think this language does that.
[Brian Collamore (Chair)]: I do too.
[Rick Siegel (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: But 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.
[Tanya Vyhovsky (Vice Chair)]: Who's blind? You would have it as a text caption underneath so that when they're recording read to them, it describes what's important.
[Rebecca "Becca" White (Member)]: Gonna have that on on television. They're not gonna have braille on the television. Mean
[Brian Collamore (Chair)]: then you
[Rebecca "Becca" White (Member)]: about the disclosure. It's not about the It's not about the video. It's just about the disclosure. 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 that's and 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. 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
[Tanya Vyhovsky (Vice Chair)]: Oh, hear I hear you on that.
[Rebecca "Becca" White (Member)]: And I don't know if removing the average viewer from this text substantively changes what it does.
[Rick Siegel (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I think it gives the maker of the content less direction, actually.
[Tanya Vyhovsky (Vice Chair)]: Okay. Then fine. That's kinda
[Rebecca "Becca" White (Member)]: I'm actually I would go over on it, but I don't wanna I worry that we're overthinking this. I I think it's fine. 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)]: Trying to be real sad. I don't remember talking about this either last year when we were doing the bill. Yeah. Did. Did we?
[Rick Siegel (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Yeah. You did.
[Brian Collamore (Chair)]: Why didn't we?
[Rebecca "Becca" White (Member)]: It's like you you did.
[Rick Siegel (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: There was pitch and pace. There there was
[Brian Collamore (Chair)]: a Yes.
[Rebecca "Becca" White (Member)]: Oh, I remember. Yeah. That's it.
[Rick Siegel (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: It's it's it's there, but there was more discussion about that.
[Brian Collamore (Chair)]: Okay.
[Tanya Vyhovsky (Vice Chair)]: Yeah. So And I teeny
[Rick Siegel (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I just deleted the comma. So it's now 1.4. Sorry.
[Brian Collamore (Chair)]: This is 1.4.
[Rebecca "Becca" White (Member)]: Yeah. Exactly. That's a criminal error is not a made a new draft.
[Rick Siegel (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: No.
[Rebecca "Becca" White (Member)]: But I I think Okay. It's exactly how I would wanna do it, but nothing about this bill is exactly how I would wanna do it. So let's go. Okay. I think it's an improvement over what we I think you're right. And for that, I'm grateful.
[Rick Siegel (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: It's gonna be 1.4. That's comma change, and this should make it I'm gonna send her a new question too. 1.4.
[Brian Collamore (Chair)]: Any other questions, concerns?
[Rebecca "Becca" White (Member)]: And we'll see how it plays out because, of course, we will get it back if it does. True. I mean, you know, it'll come back to this committee. Yeah.
[Brian Collamore (Chair)]: Then we go to a conference.
[Tanya Vyhovsky (Vice Chair)]: No. No. I mean,
[Rebecca "Becca" White (Member)]: after after it goes into Please go.
[Brian Collamore (Chair)]: Well, can you sit back and forth? Back and forth twice? Yeah. I I'm What I meant to ask
[Rebecca "Becca" White (Member)]: want to get it acted and is it play, we will get feedback about how
[Brian Collamore (Chair)]: to Yeah.
[Tanya Vyhovsky (Vice Chair)]: Chair, I would move that we I don't I haven't done this in a bit. I've passed that we amend
[Rebecca "Becca" White (Member)]: Adopt. Adopt
[Tanya Vyhovsky (Vice Chair)]: the amendment draft number 1.4 for s
[Rebecca "Becca" White (Member)]: 23.
[Brian Collamore (Chair)]: Okay. Any further discussion? Not, the clerk can call the roll.
[John Morley III (Clerk)]: Okay. Senator Clarkson.
[Rebecca "Becca" White (Member)]: Yes.
[Brian Collamore (Chair)]: John Morley. Yes. Senator Vanderhovsky. Yes. Senator White?
[Rebecca "Becca" White (Member)]: Yes. Senator Collamore? Yes. 500. Okay.
[Brian Collamore (Chair)]: I'll get it up to Melissa, and so it'll be on notice Tuesday and on the action calendar probably Wednesday. Reasonable. Perfect. And you're reporting it? Yep. Thank you. Good work. Hey. Week two get that.
[Rick Siegel (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Yeah. Unlimited thing about
[Rebecca "Becca" White (Member)]: Week two, we passed out a bill. Yeah. Amendment. Yeah. Amendment to a bill that Yes. We know You know? Hurry up. We're done with this.
[Brian Collamore (Chair)]: Yes. For what? Is there anything is there anything else for the committee this week?
[Rebecca "Becca" White (Member)]: No.
[Brian Collamore (Chair)]: Okay. If not, we'll adjourn for the week and see all of you on Tuesday. I'll wait for it.