Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Administrative Rules topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Senate Commerce Committee rejects final rule 17.0101.305.01.A after technical-correction dispute
Summary
The Idaho Senate Commerce and Human Resources Committee voted to reject final rule 17.0101.305.01.A after members and Department of Finance and Management staff clarified that a prior action left the unstruck sentence in place.
The Idaho Senate Commerce and Human Resources Committee voted to reject final rule 17.0101.305.01.A after members said a prior procedural correction had restored language they intended to remove.
The motion to reject the final rule was made by Senator Foreman and seconded by Senator Lakey; Vice Chairman Lenny presided. Lauren Smizer, regulatory and legislative affairs bureau chief at the Division of Financial Management (DFM), told the committee that the body had rejected the pending change that had crossed out the second sentence but had thereby left the sentence in the final rule. "Now, I think the next motion needs to be the rejection of the final rule, of 17.0101 0.305 0.01 point A," Smizer said.
Committee members discussed whether the earlier action accomplished the group's intent. Senator Foreman withdrew his initial motion and offered a clarified motion: "I move to reject final 17.0101.305.01.a." Senator Lakey seconded. After a voice vote, the chair announced, "Ayes have it. And final rule 17Dash0101Dot305Dot01DotA has been rejected." The committee did not record individual roll-call votes in the transcript.
The change affects the docket identified earlier in the meeting as relating to pending rules; DFM staff repeatedly described the required sequence of motions during the exchange and confirmed that rejecting the final rule was necessary to remove the subsection entirely. Smizer summarized the procedural effect: by rejecting the pending-rule deletion earlier, the committee had restored the previously final language, so a separate motion rejecting the final rule itself was required to remove subsection A in full.
Committee members did not discuss substantive policy effects of the subsection during the exchange; their discussion focused on the correct procedural steps to remove the language. The committee moved on after the vote to other agenda items, including minutes and other dockets.
The action was taken by voice vote with the result announced in open session.
