Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Administrative Rulemaking topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee hears bill to let agencies quickly dismiss out-of-jurisdiction petitioners
Summary
House Bill 33 would let executive-branch agencies summarily dismiss citizen petitions for rulemaking that fall outside an agency’s legislatively granted rulemaking jurisdiction, aiming to reduce staff time spent processing petitions that must instead be addressed by the Legislature or another agency.
Representative Neil Durham (House District 1) introduced House Bill 33 to amend Montana’s Administrative Procedure Act (MAPPA) so agencies may summarily dismiss citizen-initiated petitions for rulemaking when the petition addresses matters outside an agency’s statutory rulemaking authority. Durham said the request came from the Department of Fish, Wildlife & Parks. Jeff Hindoyen, chief legal counsel for Fish, Wildlife & Parks, testified the change would let agencies quickly notify petitioners that their request belongs elsewhere—either with another executive agency or with the Legislature if the requested change would require a statutory amendment.
Why it matters: Agency staff said they have spent substantial time taking petitions through internal processes only to determine that the requested changes are legislative standards beyond the commission’s authority (for example, lake noise or navigation provisions). Hindoyen described the bill as a front-end screening tool that preserves the existing citizen petition process for matters within an agency’s jurisdiction but gives staff a faster, written way to point petitioners to the appropriate decisionmaker.
Committee questions focused on safeguards. Representative Schubert asked whether a petition partly within an agency’s jurisdiction but partly outside it could be entirely dismissed; Hindoyen said the department intends to narrow petitions where possible and would not use the provision to discard valid in-jurisdiction requests. Members also asked whether petitioners would receive written reasons; Hindoyen confirmed written, evidence-based responses are already required under the statute governing petitions. When asked whether the bill would produce direct budgetary savings, Hindoyen said there was no specific dollar estimate but that the measure would free staff time for other agency work.
Next steps: The sponsor acknowledged committee concerns—especially about the phrase "summarily dismiss"—and said he would work with members on amendments. The committee closed the hearing and the chair urged sponsors to file any amendments promptly so the bill could be scheduled for executive action.
