Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Rulemaking topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board hears detailed overview of state rulemaking process as members weigh proposed land-surveyor rule changes
Summary
Board members discussed a proposed set of rule changes and the formal, multistage state rulemaking process; staff said the process is extensive, typically taking months and requiring public notice, hearings and multiple agency reviews.
The Board of Land Surveyors discussed proposed rule changes and the formal state rulemaking timeline, with staff warning the board that even small edits trigger a multi-stage process that can take most of a year to complete.
Board members raised questions about how to review draft language and whether to open multiple rule sections at once. "Because the rules have the force of law, but aren't produced by an elected legislature, there are a lot of checks put onto rule making to make sure that when agencies make rules, we're still accountable to the public," Emily, an OPR staff member, told the board. She described a process that begins with an agency-drafted proposed rule, stakeholder outreach and multiple internal drafts, followed by review by the Interagency Committee on Administrative Rules, filing with the Secretary of State and publication in newspapers of record to start a 30-day public comment period and public hearings.
Emily said revisions commonly follow public comment and hearings, and that the Legislative Committee on Administrative Rules provides a separate legislative review; she warned that the entire formal part of the process "is required to happen within 8 months," though extensions are sometimes granted. Board members were reminded that even a one-word change requires the full rulemaking sequence.
Several members said they want time to review the draft rule proposals before formal action. "I think there needs to be some discussion just amongst the board, to hash out a few things about it before it gets spinning out too far," one board member said. Emily and other staff suggested the board may do preparatory work between meetings but cautioned against substantive board discussions outside of publicly noticed meetings because of open meetings law requirements.
The board and staff discussed practical approaches: staff can work in small-group, pre-meeting drafting sessions with board officers, but those discussions must be presented and decided in a public meeting; the board may schedule a special public meeting devoted to rulemaking so the public can observe. Board members agreed to review the draft language individually and bring notes to the board's next scheduled meeting for more detailed deliberation.
No formal rulemaking vote or filing occurred at the meeting; staff described the likely timeline and next steps and the board agreed to continue work and discussion at future public meetings.
