Relating to legislative review and approval of state agency rules.
Impact
The implementation of HB 2926 would significantly reshape the interaction between state agencies and the legislature. By introducing a requirement for legislative approval of rules, the bill seeks to prevent regulations from being enacted without scrutiny. This oversight mechanism could lead to a more balanced regulatory environment where agencies cannot unilaterally impose rules that may affect citizens and businesses without legislative consent. Proponents argue this would enhance public trust in government operations, but critics warn it could obstruct timely rule enactments necessary for effective governance.
Summary
House Bill 2926, known as the Texas Legislative Review Act, aims to establish a framework for legislative review and approval of state agency rules. The bill mandates that all state agencies must file rules, excluding emergency rules, with both the Secretary of State and legislative officers simultaneously. This process ensures that the legislature has the opportunity to review proposed rules and to suspend them should they not meet the legislative standards or expectations. By requiring legislative oversight, the bill intends to enhance the accountability of state agencies in rulemaking.
Sentiment
The general sentiment surrounding HB 2926 is mixed. Supporters, primarily from the Republican side, view the legislation as a necessary reform to ensure transparency and control over the regulatory process. They believe that such oversight will enhance government accountability and protect citizens from potentially arbitrary regulations. On the other hand, some Democrats and public interest groups express concern that the legislation could lead to delays in crucial agency rulemaking, hindering the state’s ability to respond swiftly to issues such as public health, environmental protection, and economic regulation.
Contention
Notable points of contention include the balance of power between the legislature and state agencies. Critics of the bill argue that it could lead to legislative micromanagement of agency operations, making it harder for agencies to adapt regulations quickly in response to changing circumstances. Moreover, there are concerns that the two-thirds requirement for suspending rules might create a de facto barrier, impeding the agencies’ ability to implement necessary changes effectively. These debates reflect a broader conflict in Texas between the desire for regulatory oversight and the need for efficient governance.
Relating to a requirement that certain rules proposed by state agencies in the executive branch of state government be approved by certain elected state officials.
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.