Committee sends contested‑case cleanup bill to general orders for amendment

The House Judiciary and Rules Committee voted unanimously to send House Bill 9 to general orders for amendment after a presentation by Representative Bruce and Brian Nichols of the Office of Administrative Hearings.

Representative Bruce (District 23) told the committee that “House Bill 9 proposes several cleanups to the contested case provision in Idaho's administrative Procedures Act and other related statutes.” Brian Nichols, Chief Administrative Officer for the Office of Administrative Hearings, outlined the bill's two main aims: remove outdated references to rules formerly prepared by the Attorney General and modernize contested‑case procedures.

Nichols said the bill addresses references in statute to the old Idaho Rules of Administrative Procedure prepared by the Attorney General, which were replaced effective July 1 of last year by the Idaho Rules of Administrative Procedure issued through the Office of Administrative Hearings. He said the bill updates statutory language so that the new rules, not the Attorney General's old rules, govern procedure.

Nichols described several contested‑case updates the bill would make. He said the measure would limit when a party can be defaulted so that defaults would apply only to “case‑critical proceedings,” specifically prehearing conferences and evidentiary hearings, rather than to every missed scheduling or status conference. He also said the bill would impose a 120‑day limit on emergency orders so that emergency agency actions (for example, a temporary license suspension) are resolved more promptly rather than remaining in effect for an indefinite period while a contested case proceeds.

Nichols summarized the Office of Administrative Hearings' caseload as part of the rationale for the changes: the office's general government division averages about 142 cases per year, with roughly 8% of those resolved in person, while the health and social services division is on track for about 700 cases a year after the office assumed Health and Welfare hearings. He said the office is guided by “access, fairness, and efficiency,” and described the bill as a modernization to reduce confusion arising from archaic references — for example, statutes that still refer to the long‑defunct appellate practice of filing “exceptions.” Nichols said, quoting a jurist he admires, “administrative law is not for sissies.”

Committee members asked clarifying questions about caseload and hearing formats. Representative Heather Scott asked about annual caseload and whether final hearings are in person or remote; Nichols said the office largely leaves the choice to the parties, provides field hearings across the state when needed, and does most general‑government hearings by Zoom while health and welfare matters are primarily teleconference.

After discussion, a committee member moved to send House Bill 9 to general orders for amendment. The motion carried unanimously.

The committee's action sends the bill to a stage where sponsors intend to draft and file specific amendments; Nichols said agencies previously submitted comments and the office has met with them and narrowed the changes it will propose. Introduction or movement to general orders does not guarantee a public hearing on every provision; the chair reminded members earlier that introduction does not assure a hearing on each item.