Relating to the preparation of government growth impact statements for rules proposed by state agencies.
If enacted, SB289 would introduce a standardized process for state agencies to disclose the potential costs and benefits of new regulations. By compelling agencies to assess and report on the economic impact and other consequences of their proposed rules, the bill seeks to mitigate unforeseen negative effects on state operations and budgeting. Furthermore, the stipulation that the statements be in plain language aims to make the information accessible to the public and stakeholders, enhancing accountability.
Senate Bill 289 focuses on the requirement for state agencies to prepare government growth impact statements for any proposed rules. This initiative aims to promote transparency in the rule-making process by ensuring that the implications of proposed regulations are clearly described. Specifically, the bill mandates that agencies evaluate how new rules may affect government programs, employee positions, legislative appropriations, and overall economic impacts during the first five years of the rule's implementation.
The sentiment surrounding SB289 appears generally positive among legislators who support regulatory transparency and the need for fiscal accountability. Proponents advocate that this bill will help maintain a better-informed public and more responsible governance. However, there are concerns expressed by opponents regarding the potential bureaucracy it could create, raising questions about whether these impact statements may add another layer of complication to the rule-making process, potentially delaying the implementation of essential regulations.
The primary points of contention revolve around the balance of maintaining rigorous regulation while ensuring government efficiency. Supporters argue that SB289 is vital for ensuring that regulations are vetted for their true costs and effects, which could help avoid misguided policies. Critics, however, warn that by instituting these requirements, the bill could result in an overly burdensome process that stifles quick responses to urgent regulatory needs, creating a tension between thorough evaluation and timely governance.