Requires a state agency to repeal two existing rules before enacting a new one
Impact
The bill's impact on state laws is significant as it modifies how state agencies can implement new rules. By mandating the repeal of existing regulations, the bill encourages agencies to critically assess the relevance and necessity of current rules. This could potentially lead to a reduction in outdated or ineffective regulations but may also raise concerns about the loss of essential protections that some regulations provide. Overall, the bill is described as a move towards regulatory reform aimed at enhancing efficiency in government operations.
Summary
House Bill 269 seeks to amend the regulatory framework within Missouri by requiring state agencies, departments, commissions, or boards to repeal at least two existing rules before enacting any new regulation. This initiative is aimed at reducing bureaucratic oversight and making the rule-making process more efficient by limiting the proliferation of regulations. Proponents of the bill argue that this will foster a more streamlined approach to governance, preventing agencies from unnecessarily over-complicating regulations that can burden citizens and businesses alike.
Sentiment
The sentiment surrounding HB 269 appears to be generally positive among its supporters, who see the legislation as a step toward necessary regulatory reform that aligns state governance with the needs of businesses and residents. However, there may be underlying apprehensions among the opposition regarding the potential for beneficial regulations to be overlooked or eliminated in the process of fulfilling the repeal requirement. The debate around this bill reflects a broader discussion on the balance between regulation and freedom in business practices.
Contention
Key points of contention regarding HB 269 relate to concerns over the potential for an overly aggressive approach to regulatory repeal. Opponents of the bill fear that it could lead to a significant reduction in important regulations that safeguard public interest and environmental integrity. Additionally, there is worry that the requirement to repeal two rules for each new one could create an imbalance, allowing less responsive regulatory environments that do not adequately address current issues or public needs. The extent to which this reform could impact the effectiveness of state governance continues to be a focal point of discussion.
Relating to the required repeal or amendment of two state agency rules before adoption of a new state agency rule that increases costs to regulated persons.