Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Administrative Rules Review topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Administrative Rules Committee sets April 15 deadline, says about 60 rule packets remain unassigned
Summary
The committee chair told members the Administrative Rules Committee must receive all reviewed rule packets by April 15 to meet a late‑April committee schedule and a May 1 deadline to file resolutions; roughly 60 packets — including many from Oklahoma Health Care Authority and the Department of Human Services — still need assignment.
The Administrative Rules Committee set a firm April 15 deadline for members to return reviewed administrative rule packets and outlined a schedule to consider disputed rules the week of April 22, the committee chair said at an April meeting.
The chair said the deadline is meant to allow time to draft resolutions and move them through both chambers: “I want to have the resolutions together and filed by the May 1,” the chair said, and added that the committee is “the last safeguard on the legislative process of administrative rules.”
The committee chair framed April as the crucial month for finishing packet reviews. “We still got roughly, roughly 60 packets that have not been assigned,” the chair said, and asked members to split the work among the 14 committee members so each would handle about three to four packets. The chair told members she will send a summary report to the committee later in the week and will contact members individually about outstanding packets.
Representative Walker asked for clarification about the committee’s deliberative process, saying, “Will it be the case then that we bring forward around the April 15 the bills for which members have reservations and then we discuss those and are we also going to discuss bills every that have been approved by the members who looked at them?” The chair replied that disputed rules will be discussed during the week of April 22 (the chair also referenced potential meeting dates of April 22, 23 or 24) and that members should submit summaries explaining their approvals or disapprovals so the committee can consider specific issues.
Members noted several agencies with unassigned packets. The chair identified four agencies with outstanding assignments by name: the Horse Racing Commission, the Oklahoma State Department of Health, the Oklahoma Health Care Authority (about 35–36 packets), and the Department of Human Services. Representative Provozano asked for confirmation: “We have 4 agencies still outstanding that haven't been assigned?” to which the chair said yes.
The chair said the committee will aim to hold its formal committee meeting on a Wednesday at 10:30 under the oversight committee schedule but may move to Monday or Tuesday depending on availability. She warned that if reviewed packets are not in her office by April 15, “we will not be able to schedule that meeting,” and that the resolution process would proceed internally with Senate leadership if the deadline is missed.
A member proposed expanding the pool of reviewers to include leadership to reduce individual workloads, asking whether including Pro Tem Moore and Speaker Hilbert would “knock it down to less than 4 each.” The member said, “I would make that motion.” A second was indicated, but no formal vote or final action on that motion appears in the transcript.
On next steps, the chair said she will collect members’ notes, assemble resolutions based on rules that members oppose, and coordinate with Senate leadership so resolutions are identical when passed between chambers. She reiterated the schedule milestones: committee packet reviews due April 15, committee discussion the week of April 22, and filing resolutions by May 1 to allow time for floor action by both chambers.
The meeting portion in the transcript ended shortly after the scheduling discussion; no formal votes on specific rules were recorded in the provided excerpt.
