Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Administrative Law topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
House delays producer‑responsibility appeals bill amid legal objections and committee split
Summary
Members debated Senate Bill 192, which would statutorily establish an appeals process for producer responsibility dues. Legislators and OLS flagged a rule that delegates evidentiary hearings to an advisory board; sponsors proposed amendments and the bill was laid over for further consideration.
The House on May 12 held extensive floor debate on Senate Bill 192, a measure meant to create a statutory appeals route for producers to contest ecomodulation decisions by producer responsibility organizations (PROs). The floor exchange focused on whether the Department of Public Health and Environment and the Solid and Hazardous Waste Commission exceeded statutory authority when a commission rule delegated evidentiary hearings to a volunteer advisory board.
Representative Soper, a sponsor, said the bill attempts to provide statutory clarity after a split 5‑5 Committee on Legal Services vote left the existing rule in place. "We wanted to see something within statute that gave us more confidence than split legal opinions," Soper said, noting a recent Oregon federal injunction on a similar program that raised constitutional concerns over the appeals process.
Representative Camacho, who requested an OLS out‑of‑cycle review, argued the commission's rule "exceeded its rule‑making authority" and that the advisory board was not an appropriate tribunal for fact‑finding. Camacho urged the House to reject an approach that "makes legal what they were previously doing that was illegal."
Debate ranged across statutory construction, administrative procedure and retroactivity. OLS recommended repeal of rule 18.2.0.7, concluding the commission lacked authority to delegate evidentiary hearings to an advisory board and that the rule conflicted with §24‑4‑105 (the APA requirement about who may preside at hearings).
Sponsors negotiated an amendment that would move quasi‑judicial responsibility back to the commission for future hearings and allowed an appeals path to the commission for certain past proceedings; that amendment was displayed, discussed and later withdrawn. Given the timing and persistent legal concerns, the House laid SB192 over to May 14 to allow additional work and to reduce litigation risk.
Representative Brett Camacho asked colleagues to oppose the bill as introduced, arguing the legislation would simply "make it legal" for an advisory board to do what OLS found exceeded statutory authority. Supporters countered that statutory framework was necessary to prevent the entire recycling program from being disrupted by litigation. The sponsors and opponents agreed the program's goals of improving recycling remain important; the immediate question is how to structure a constitutionally sound appeals process.
Because the House laid the bill over, further changes are expected before any final passage.
