Sponsor seeks to limit executive-branch advocacy before committees; agencies warn of operational and constitutional conflicts

Representative Potenza presented House Bill 456, a proposal that would require state agencies to provide information to House committees only "at the committee's request" and bar agencies from taking positions in support of or opposition to matters before the legislature. Potenza said the measure was intended to keep executive-branch testimony factual and avoid agencies "gaming the system" by signaling policy positions while using department resources.

Why it matters: If enacted, the bill would reshape the relationship between executive agencies and the legislature by limiting unsolicited agency communications and by restricting agencies from taking a position during formally scheduled testimony.

Key testimony and concerns

- Operational consequences: Paul Smith, clerk of the House, and John Williams, legislative director for DHHS, explained how current practice allows agencies to send letters or analysis in advance of hearings and to participate in budget and policy discussions; Smith said the plain-language reading of the draft could prevent agencies from submitting factual letters or other pre-hearing materials until a committee formally requests them.

- Scope and exceptions: Witnesses asked whether the governor’s address or a commissioner’s appearance in support of a department-requested bill would be affected. Potenza said a department-requested bill would still permit factual information, but that the bill aims to distinguish factual information from taking a position. Multiple agency witnesses said the distinction is operationally difficult because information and policy positions are often intertwined.

- Child-advocacy and small agency concerns: The Office of the Child Advocate — a small oversight agency that often brings expertise on bills affecting children — said the proposal would impede its ability to provide timely, protective testimony and cited its statutory duty to advocate for vulnerable children.

Process and next steps

Clerk Smith summarized the statute history: chapter 98f grew out of a 2005 legislative ethics effort intended to hold paid actors (like lobbyists and executive staff) to identification and disclosure standards. Committee counsel and staff were asked to weigh in on the mechanical meaning of "committee's request" language and on whether the bill would require open-session committee votes to request agency input.

Taper: The committee closed the HB 456 hearing without taking action; staff and counsel will examine statutory mechanics and whether revisions could balance transparency, separation of powers and the agencies' need to provide budget and public-safety information.