Requires a state agency to repeal two existing rules before enacting a new one
Impact
If enacted, HB 1961 will significantly modify how state agencies create and implement administrative rules. Agencies will need to carefully assess their current regulations and ensure a reduction in the overall rule burden when proposing new measures. The focus on repealing existing rules could lead to a more simplified regulatory landscape, potentially reducing confusion and compliance costs for citizens and businesses. Moreover, it encourages agencies to justify the necessity and efficacy of each new rule compared to the ones being repealed, which may lead to fewer but more effective regulations overall.
Summary
House Bill 1961 aims to streamline the regulatory process within state agencies by establishing a rule that any new administrative rule implemented must necessitate the repeal of at least two existing rules. The overarching intent of the bill is to reduce regulatory burden on individuals and businesses by ensuring that new regulations do not proliferate without considering the existing regulatory frameworks. By requiring this rule repeal, the bill sets a framework for accountability and efficiency within state agencies, which it hopes will foster a more navigable environment for compliance among those affected by these rules.
Sentiment
The general sentiment surrounding HB 1961 appears to lean towards a favorable perspective from proponents, particularly among those advocating for regulatory reform and accountability within government. Supporters argue that the bill will bring much-needed clarity and efficiency to the regulatory process, benefiting citizens and businesses alike. However, there are concerns from critics about the potential for excessive deregulation or the loss of valuable protections that existing rules may provide. The balance between reducing regulatory burden and maintaining adequate oversight and protection is a core element of the ongoing debate surrounding this bill.
Contention
Notable points of contention arise from differing views on the necessity and implications of existing regulations. Opponents of HB 1961 may argue that simply repealing existing rules in favor of new ones could undermine essential protections in place for public health, safety, or the environment. They emphasize that not all rules are burdensome; many serve critical roles in safeguarding citizens. The bill's implementation and its requirement of rule repeals leave room for debate about which regulations may be deemed expendable and could spark significant discussions on regulatory priorities amongst legislators and advocacy groups.
Requires any legislation originating in the House that adds a new requirement for public schools to include provisions that reduce an existing requirement for public schools