Neylon pitches proposed rules review as way to ‘make JCRAR great again’

GOP state Rep. Adam Neylon urged lawmakers to back legislation that would require lawmakers to reauthorize chapters in the administrative code every seven years, saying it would “make JCRAR great again.”

Neylon, R-Pewaukee, testified yesterday alongside GOP Sen. Steve Nass, his fellow co-chair of the Joint Committee for Review of Administrative Rules. He argued to a joint legislative hearing that the proposal was needed to reestablish the Legislature’s role in the administrative rules process.

SB 277/AB 274 was introduced in May, before the state Supreme Court ruled JCRAR no longer had the power to indefinitely suspend agency proposals. 

Rep. Mike Bare, D-Verona, pointed to that decision as he questioned whether the proposal would withstand court scrutiny.

The bill would require JCRAR to create a schedule for the expiration of all existing code chapters. The year before a chapter was to expire, the agency would have to send JCRAR and the appropriate standing committee a notice of the intent to readopt the chapter.

If no committee members object, the chapter would be readopted without further action. 

But if one did, the agency would have to promulgate a rule to readopt the chapter through the standard process.

“I think you’re making it unconstitutional again,” Bare said.

The court’s ruling has left the GOP-controlled Legislature without a meaningful way to halt administrative rules proposed by the Evers administration. Lawmakers would now have to pass legislation that Gov. Tony Evers would sign to stop rules proposed by his administration.

Nass and Neylon said they are working on an amendment that would try to ensure the proposal is constitutional under the court’s July ruling.

Neylon argued the administrative rules process was meant to have legislative oversight. Otherwise, state agencies have the power to create rules and administrate them with no oversight. He said lawmakers should be the ones creating public policy, rather than a “system that allows for everything to come from one place.”

“This is one way we thought we could do that to bring some sanity back to this process,” Neylon said.

The other bills the joint hearing took testimony on include:

• SB 276/AB 275, which would require a court that rules an administrative rule to be invalid to award reasonable attorney fees and costs to the party that challenged the regulation.
• SB 275/AB 276, which would make changes to the frameworks agencies put together on proposed rules. Known as scope statements, they now expire after 30 months. Agencies then can’t promulgate any rule based on that statement of scope that hasn’t been submitted for legislative review. The bill would set that as six months for emergency rules, which are temporary regulations that can only be extended with legislative approval. The bill would make other changes, such as limiting an agency to one rule per scope statement.
• SB 289/AB 277, which would change state law that add steps for regulations that are expected to pass along $10 million or more in implementation costs to businesses, local governments or individuals over a two-year period. Now, agencies must stop working on such proposals until they modify the rule to reduce the expected cost or a bill is enacted to allow the rule to proceed. The bill would change that threshold to any proposed rule that’s reasonably expected to pass along any amount of implementation and compliance costs to businesses, local governments and individuals over any two-year period.