Law Committee Rejects Codifying Request-for-Legislative-Action Form; Majority Cites Need for Flexibility

A proposed resolution to codify programmatic information requirements on the county’s Request for Legislative Action (RLA) form received a negative recommendation after lengthy committee debate about transparency, administrative burden and practical applicability.

Sponsor Conway said the draft would “codif[y] the request for legislative action practices” to provide more consistent program information for committee consideration. Majority Counsel opposed codification and told the panel: “We are opposed to any, codification of the process because we like the flexibility to change as needed now…We've never had any problems getting information from the executive.” The majority office said a codified checklist would create unnecessary administrative burden and reduce flexibility to tailor information to individual requests.

Supporters pressed for routine inclusion of basic program details — such as “how many people are you serving” or budgetary impact — and suggested non-applicable items could be marked “NA.” Legislator Bourgeoff argued such information is “certainly a legitimate request” for larger expenditures and said a standard form would aid transparency. Opponents countered that many RLAs are not applicable to those fields and that requiring departments to provide the information on every submission would be inefficient.

After discussion the committee moved the item with a negative recommendation; the chair explained there was not a widespread problem the resolution solved and that the existing RLA process has been functioning with cooperation between the majority office and the executive. The committee’s action preserves the current, flexible practice and leaves it to legislators to request additional information case by case.