An Act Concerning The Review Of Existing Regulations Of Connecticut State Agencies.
Impact
The passage of HB 06468 is anticipated to result in significant changes to the regulatory landscape in Connecticut. It introduces a framework that encourages agencies to actively assess and refine their regulatory practices. Additionally, it aims to empower the public by requiring agencies to conduct reviews and submit findings, thus facilitating informed public participation through mandated hearings. The effective date of the legislation is set for October 1, 2023, indicating a pending shift in how state regulations will be managed moving forward.
Summary
House Bill 06468 is designed to enhance the process for reviewing existing regulations of Connecticut state agencies. The bill mandates that each agency must evaluate its regulations to determine if they are obsolete, ineffective, or inconsistent with current laws. This review process is expected to take place every seven years, providing a structured timeline for revisiting and possibly amending outdated or unused regulations. By setting clear deadlines for these reviews, the bill aims to promote transparency and accountability within state agencies, ensuring that regulations remain relevant and applicable to current needs.
Sentiment
The sentiment surrounding HB 06468 has been largely positive among advocates for governmental reform, who view it as a crucial step toward ensuring that state agencies operate more efficiently and responsively. There is a recognition of the potential for this bill to streamline regulatory practices, reduce bureaucratic obstacles, and promote better governance. However, some concerns have been voiced regarding the implementation of these reviews and the potential for agencies to bypass necessary regulations under the guise of efficiency, leading to mixed reactions from various stakeholders.
Contention
While proponents of HB 06468 argue that the bill will foster a more modern and effective regulatory framework for state agencies, opponents raise apprehensions about its execution. There is concern that certain regulations deemed unnecessary could be repealed, possibly undermining standards that protect public interest. The debate centers on balancing the need for regulatory updates with the importance of maintaining safeguards and ensuring that regulation does not lapse into laxity due to streamlined processes. As such, the discourse surrounding this legislation highlights the tension between regulatory flexibility and the need for comprehensive oversight.
Campaign finance: contributions and expenditures; provision related to officeholders raising funds when facing a recall; modify, and require candidate to establish a separate account used for recall purposes. Amends secs. 3, 11, 12, 21, 24 & 52 of 1976 PA 388 (MCL 169.203 et seq.) & adds sec. 21b.
Campaign finance: contributions and expenditures; funds donated to a candidate for recall efforts; require candidate to establish a separate account used for recall purposes. Amends secs. 3, 11, 12, 21, 24 & 52 of 1976 PA 388 (MCL 169.203 et seq.) & adds sec. 21b.
A concurrent resolution recognizing wild rice as sacred and central to the culture and health of Indigenous Peoples in Minnesota and critical to the health and identity of all Minnesota citizens and ecosystems and establishing a commitment to passing legislation to protect wild rice and the freshwater resources upon which it depends.