HB 225 proposed to add another step to the current rulemaking process followed by state agencies by requiring agencies to prepare an "impact statement" on any rules deemed to have a "significant social or economic impact."

The impact statement would have to include: (1) a description of how the rule affects the social or economic climate of the state; (2) alternatives to the rule which would fulfill the agency’s legal obligations but would reduce the social and economic impact; and (3) an estimate of the cost to the state of implementing the rule or any alternatives.

HB 225 also provided that each new rule, amendment to a rule, or repeal of a rule after June 30, 1997, would be stayed for 120 days after filing to give the Legislature’s Management Council time to review the change.

If no action was taken by Management Council within the 120 days, the rule would be deemed approved. If the Council disapproved the rule, however, it would not go into effect until after adjournment of the next regular session of the Legislature or until the Legislature, by joint resolution, revoked the suspension. (Failure of the Legislature to act on the Council’s suspension of a proposed rule would also reinstate the rule.)

HB 225 also gave Management Council the power to propose amendments to rules, and to withdraw its disapproval if the agency agreed to the amendment(s).

Proponents of the bill argued that it was necessary to rein in agencies which were enacting rules without regard to their impact on businesses and communities.

Opponents pointed out that the current rulemaking process is a public one involving opportunity for public comment. They also argued that the bill gave too much power to the 13-member Management Council and did not provide for the costs to agencies and to the Legislature for implementing the bill.

HB 225 failed in the House Committee of the Whole (the first opportunity for full floor debate), 22-36 (1 excused, 1 absent).