Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Rulemaking Transparency topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Bill would allow chief sponsor nonvoting seat on rule‑making advisory committees; opponents warn of separation‑of‑powers and undue influence
Summary
House Bill 35‑69 would require agencies that appoint rules advisory committees (RACs) to invite the bill’s chief sponsor — or a designated designee — to serve as a nonvoting RAC member when implementing newly enacted legislation.
House Bill 35‑69 would require state agencies to invite the chief sponsor of newly enacted legislation — or the designated designee or a committee chair for committee‑sponsored bills — to serve as a nonvoting member of an initial rules advisory committee charged with drafting rules to implement that legislation.
Representative Mark Gamba, who sponsored the bill in the House, told the Senate Committee on Rules the measure is a targeted fix for a recurring problem: when the legislative intent of a passed bill is lost or reshaped during the rule‑making process. Gamba said the bill is explicit that a sponsor would serve only in an advisory, nonvoting capacity and that Legislative Counsel had concluded a nonvoting role avoids constitutional separation‑of‑powers problems so long as legislators do not vote.
Supporters included former state senator Lee Beyer, who said legislators have long complained that some agency rules bear little resemblance to the bills passed by the Legislature, and welcomed a modest way to allow sponsors to “raise that concern” during rulemaking.
Opponents included 1,000 Friends of Oregon and WaterWatch of Oregon, which testified that the bill is unnecessary and risks upsetting the balance of power. Mary Kyle McCurdy of 1,000 Friends said that by the time a bill is enacted it reflects the intent of the whole Legislature, not a single sponsor, and that RACs are statutorily intended to advise agencies about implementing the final legislation. McCurdy also argued the bill continues to raise separation‑of‑powers concerns because RACs are advisory and do not vote; adding legislators to RACs would not cure that constitutional question. WaterWatch said existing statutory and administrative tools (including legislative counsel review under current law) already protect legislative intent and that permitting sponsor participation could inject imbalance and chill frank discussion.
Committee discussion included a question about the ability of a sponsor or chair to designate a non‑legislator designee; sponsors and staff said the bill is silent on that point and that the invitation is permissive, not mandatory.
The committee heard both pro and con testimony and closed the public hearing; no committee vote on the bill was recorded at this hearing.
