Joint resolution; approving and disapproving certain proposed permanent rules of state agencies.
Impact
The implications of SJR22 on state laws include a streamlining process of how administrative rules are adopted and the direct assertion of legislative authority over agency regulations. By approving most proposed rules while disapproving specific ones, the resolution seeks to ensure that new rules align with legislative intent and policy priorities. This measure may enhance oversight of state agencies and limit the regulatory power of agencies regarding specific areas deemed contentious or unnecessary by lawmakers.
Summary
SJR22 is a Joint Resolution passed by the Oklahoma Legislature that addresses the approval and disapproval of permanent rules proposed by various state agencies. The resolution specifies that all proposed permanent rules filed by state agencies on or before April 1, 2023, are generally approved. However, it explicitly disapproves certain proposed rules from the Oklahoma Health Care Authority, the State Department of Education, and other agencies. This reflects an effort to manage state administrative regulations and ensure compliance with legislative standards.
Sentiment
The overall sentiment surrounding SJR22 appears to reflect a cautious approach by the legislature to maintain control over state regulations. Supporters advocate that this resolution promotes accountability and transparency within state agencies, ensuring that agency rules do not infringe on public interests. Conversely, there may be concern among those advocating for agency independence that such oversight might hinder agencies' ability to function effectively, particularly in areas needing nuanced regulatory frameworks.
Contention
Notable points of contention include the specific disapprovals listed in SJR22, which may indicate ongoing disagreements regarding how certain sectors, such as health care and education, are regulated. The decision to disapprove rules related to the health care authority suggests a significant pushback against proposed changes that could influence service delivery and regulatory practices within the state. This tension reflects broader discussions about the balance of power between legislative oversight and the autonomy of state agencies tasked with implementing policy.