Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Administrative Transparency topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Idaho bill would require agencies to post administrative rules and policies on their websites; committee sends measure back to sponsor for revision
Summary
Rep. Heather Scott introduced RS 32,091 to require state departments and constitutional officers to post administrative rules and policies on their agency websites; the House State Affairs Committee debated scope and whether to require a disclaimer that policies are not law, then voted to return the draft to the sponsor for reworking.
Rep. Heather Scott, R-Idaho District 2, introduced RS 32,091 on behalf of the House State Affairs Committee to require state departments and constitutional officers that maintain websites to publish administrative rules and policy documents on those sites.
The proposal, Scott said, “requires the State Department and constitutional officers that currently have an online presence to publish their rules and policies online,” a change she described as intended to make “it more easier for citizens to understand what is required of them.”
Scott told the committee the draft is short and limited to agencies that already maintain a website: “we're not asking them to create anything new, include on the website any administrative rules or policies promulgated by the Department or officer,” and that the content “shall be reviewed and updated by each department and officer at least annually to ensure it remains current.”
Why it matters: committee members said the change would improve transparency for citizens confronted with administrative requirements that have the force of law but can be hard to locate. Representative Mickelson asked whether the bill responds to a particular problem or is simply a best-practice change; Scott answered that citizens frequently cannot identify whether an agency requirement is a rule or a policy. Representative Boyle pressed for a clearer public notice that agency policies do not have the force of law; the committee discussed adding language requiring such a disclaimer on agency websites.
Discussion and committee direction: members questioned scope and operational burden. Scott noted there are “189 agencies in the State” and said administrative rules are currently posted to the Department of Administration site but are not always available under an agency's own heading. Representative Achilles asked whether departments had been consulted on workload; Scott replied she did not foresee added work beyond existing postings and did not expect a fiscal note. Staff (Paula) agreed the disclaimer idea was sensible but suggested a two-step approach: first require posting, then add a required disclaimer or limit postings to administrative rules only.
Committee action: Representative Barbieri moved to introduce RS 32,091. Representative Boyle offered a substitute motion to add the sentence requiring that “agency policy statements and guidance documents shall not have the force and effect of law.” Representatives discussed adding language that would quote the applicable Idaho Code provision. Representative Holtzclaw then offered an amended substitute motion to return RS 32,091 to the sponsor for revision to include the committee's preferred language. The committee voted by voice to return the draft to the sponsor for changes.
Outcome and next steps: RS 32,091 was returned to Representative Scott for reworking to incorporate the committee's direction on disclaimer language and other clarifications. The transcript records the committee’s vote as a voice vote and does not record a roll-call tally.
Ending: Committee members signaled willingness to consider amended language that either requires posting of administrative rules only or requires a public-facing disclaimer clarifying that policy and guidance do not create law. Representative Scott said she would work with colleagues on amendments before the next submission.
