Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Administrative Rules Rejection topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee sends HB 223 to the House floor with a due-pass recommendation after discussion on rule-rejection process
Summary
Representative Barbieri moved to send House Bill 223 to the floor with a due-pass recommendation; sponsors and members debated whether the draft requires one house or both houses to reject agency rules and how temporary, proposed and final rules are handled. The committee approved the motion to send the bill to the floor.
Representative Vito Barbieri, R-District 3 of Kootenai County, presented House Bill 223 to clarify the legislative process for rejecting administrative rules.
Barbieri told the committee the draft should be read as allowing a single chamber to reject a rule in some situations and described confusion in the Legislative Services Office (LSO) drafting about whether a concurrent resolution would be required. "The way this is written it's confusing saying it appears as though we're requiring a concurrent resolution for rejecting a rule," Barbieri said, and he described his goal of allowing a single house to effectuate rejection in many cases rather than always requiring both chambers.
Members discussed the different rule categories — temporary, proposed and final — and the consequences for each. A member asked whether a committee’s rejection of a rule would then require the other chamber’s concurrence to make that rejection effective; Barbieri said the current draft sometimes calls for a concurrent resolution when a committee pulls up a final rule and the intention of the bill is to tighten the process so a single house could act in many instances. Another member described a prior case in which a final rule was approved by the other chamber and thus escaped review by this committee, producing disputes over procurement and a health-insurance contract.
Representative Scott moved to send House Bill 223 to the floor with a due-pass recommendation. The committee voted on the motion with a voice vote and it passed; no public testimony was offered at the committee meeting.
