House rejects amendment; debate sharpens over making elected-official staff "at will"

House Bill 3 24, which would change personnel rules for staff who work for several statewide elected officials, prompted extended floor debate on the House chamber’s second reading and several roll-call and standing votes.

The bill would reclassify employees of certain elected offices so those employees are not subject to the executive-branch personnel system, potentially making positions “at will” under the authority of the elected official. Representative Larson Lloyd and others pressed for a floor amendment (Amendment No. 2) that would have removed the section exempting those employees from longstanding executive branch personnel rules and left in place statutory limits that the sponsors said remain controlling. Larson Lloyd described the amendment as restoring the legislature’s ability to review and evaluate staffing and position requests for appropriations. That amendment failed in a standing/recorded vote called on the floor (chair announced the result as "failed to be adopted 3033 to '25").

Debate themes: Opponents of the bill argued the change would erode legislative oversight, make hiring and compensation less transparent to appropriators and could create unequal compensation categories within state government. Representative Larson Lloyd and Representative Nicholas raised concerns about appropriations committee oversight if job classifications and personnel rules no longer applied and warned about losing information needed to evaluate budgets. Representative Brown recounted prior high-profile pay decisions by executive staff and said the bill could enshrine unequal pay authority.

Supporters, including Representative Behr and Representative Pendergraft, argued the five statewide elected officials are independently elected and should have flexibility to hire staff aligned with their office visions and to respond quickly to recruitment needs for specialized positions; they said appropriations and budgeting authority would remain with the legislature. Proponents also argued the current centralized personnel system had slowed some reclassifications and that campaign- or policy-driven elected offices need hiring flexibility.

Formal actions recorded: Second reading Amendment No.1 (technical/clarifying) — adopted. Second reading Amendment No.2 (Larson Lloyd, preserve personnel rules and legislative oversight) — failed in a recorded standing vote announced on the floor. The House proceeded to third reading after the chamber disposition recorded above.

Clarifying comments from the floor: Representatives cited a 7‑year data point cited during debate that the four (or five) affected elected offices requested roughly 109 position reclassifications from 2018–2025, with an average turnaround of about 23–27 days in most offices; supporters argued this demonstrated current processes largely worked, while opponents cited specific examples of lengthy reclassification waits as rationale for giving elected officials more authority.

What to watch: If enacted, the bill would reassign personnel governance to elected officials’ offices and change how appropriators evaluate position requests and compensation in future budgets.