Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Archives And Procurement topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
House debate on 'Centennial Permanent Paper' highlights archives, procurement concerns; vote recorded as tied in transcript
Summary
Representative Evans introduced House Bill 62 to require alkaline (permanent) paper for state records to reduce long‑term preservation costs and environmental harm; opponents argued procurement direction is improper. The transcript records a 37–37 tally with ambiguous language about passage.
Representative Evans presented House Bill 62, described in the transcript as the "Centennial Permanent Paper" bill, telling the House the measure would require the State of Utah to use alkaline‑based paper instead of acid‑based paper to improve longevity, reduce archival costs and lessen environmental pollution.
Evans said the bill came at the request of three state organizations — the University of Utah Marriott Library archivists, the State Office of Archiving and the Utah State Historical Society — and listed three advantages: projected cost competitiveness, longer archival life for documents and reduced environmental harm from acid paper breakdown. He illustrated the problem with two books, one printed on acid paper that he said would deteriorate within decades and another printed on alkaline paper that he said would last far longer.
Representative Arrington opposed the measure on procurement grounds, arguing the Legislature should not prescribe by statute what procurement officers must buy and that procurement decisions belong to experienced officers. Other members asked practical questions about availability; Evans replied that alkaline paper is readily available and becoming more so.
The House called the vote later in the session; the transcript records the clerk’s announcement that "House Bill 162 having received 37 yes votes and 37 no votes veil to pass." The recorded language is ambiguous in the transcript ("veil to pass"); the tally printed in the record is 37 yes and 37 no. The transcript does not include a clear, unambiguous statement that the bill was finally adopted or transmitted to the Senate. (Report uses only the vote and language as spoken on the floor.)
Because the transcript's vote announcement is ambiguous, this report presents the recorded roll call tally and the transcript wording verbatim rather than inferring final procedural disposition beyond the House clerk’s statement.
