For the last couple of decades, much of the work at the Idaho Legislature during the opening weeks has been devoted to examining the state’s administrative rules – those proposed or tentatively adopted during the previous year – and deciding which if any should be rejected.
Usually there are a few, and there are this year. The legislature’s work on administrative rules is stretching out all the way to the end of the session this time; several concurrent resolutions (the legislative tool for acting on administrative rules) calling for rejections were introduced as recently as last week, when lawmakers theoretically were preparing for adjournment. (Don’t place any bets on that happening this side of April, by the way.)
After lawmakers finish parsing through fat binders of densely written legalese, which is some of the less-known and more tedious work they do, a relative handful of rules usually wind up facing possible rejection. Generally, these are rules which have drawn complaints or concerns from someone, whether the regulated, the regulators, legal counsel or someone else. At this writing, 11 such rejections have been proposed, and several of those have cleared the legislature.
Legislative oversight of the rules makes sense. Developed and published by state agencies, these rules have the effect of law, and they are imposed through the authority of laws passed by the legislature. They do it that way because most state laws are relatively general, even a little vague, and that’s not a criticism. It’s the business of the legislature to set the policy, not so much to bury itself deeply in the weeds of administrative rules, where things really get, ah, specific.
Very specific. Very detailed.
Here’s an example of a rule proposed for legislative rejection, from the “non-technical” (that is, reader-friendly) description offered by the agency: “The Board of Veterinary Medicine issues certifications to qualified veterinary technician applicants. Current rule provides several ways a certified veterinary technician (CVT) applicant can demonstrate completion of the educational requirements for certification. Two of the existing methods for an applicant to satisfy these requirements are to submit evidence of graduation from a veterinary technology program equivalent to a program approved by the American Veterinary Medical Association or, if a foreign graduate, graduation from a program of veterinary medicine from a foreign school approved by the Board. The Board has determined that it lacks the expertise and means to adequately evaluate whether a non-accredited CVT program is equivalent to an accredited AVMA program or to approve foreign schools of veterinary medicine. To ensure uniformity in entry-level knowledge of certified veterinary technicians in Idaho, IDAPA 46.01.01.100 is being amended to delete these provisions.”
Some rules do have larger application. Of one Department of Water Resources rule a statement of purpose remarked, “This rule was rejected in committee because it eliminated the current boundary lines of the Eastern Snake Plain Aquifer, and not enough technical data was available at the present time for the Department of Water Resources to accurately evaluate the underground water sources available in the additional territory added to the ESPA to define the effects on the various sections of the Aquifer.” Maybe that’s all true, but is the legislature really the right body to provide the kind of technical review that resolution contemplates?
That’s the sort of thing which occupies a large chunk of the limited time span of Idaho legislative sessions – not general policy, decisions about going in this direction rather than that, but evaluating exactly what education standards should be needed for jobs like veterinary technician applicants. Is this a useful way for legislatures to spend their limited time in Boise?
Seems as though there should be a better way.Share on Facebook