Skip to content

Bills · 2011-2012 Regular Session

AB 389

Died at session end Official bill text Atom feed

the authority of a state agency to promulgate rules interpreting the provisions of a statute enforced or administered by the agency and to implement or enforce standards, requirements, and thresholds; elimination of gubernatorial approval of proposed administrative rules; economic impact reports of proposed rules; elimination of statements of scope for emergency rules; legislative review of proposed rules; legislative authorization for certain proposed rules; and venue in a declaratory judgment action seeking judicial review of the validity of an administrative rule.

  1. Introduced, stopped here
  2. Passes Assembly, not reached
  3. Passes Senate, not reached
  4. Governor signs, not reached
  5. Law, not reached

Unfamiliar terms? Glossary

What this bill does

Plain-language analysis by the nonpartisan Legislative Reference Bureau

Introduction

2011 Wisconsin Act 21

made various changes relating to the administrative

rule-making process. The act: 1) limited the authority of a state agency (agency) to

promulgate administrative rules (rules) interpreting the provisions of a statute

enforced or administered by the agency and to implement or enforce standards,

requirements, and thresholds; 2) required gubernatorial approval of a proposed rule;

3) expanded the scope of the requirement that an economic impact analysis be

prepared for a proposed rule; 4) made various changes relating to legislative review

of a proposed rule; and 5) changed the venue of declaratory judgment actions seeking

judicial review of the validity of a rule. In addition,

2011 Wisconsin Act 32

required

legislative authorization for a rule that would increase the cost of construction or

remodeling of a one- or two-family dwelling by more than $1,000.

This bill eliminates those changes, thereby restoring prior law.

Agency authority to promulgate rules and implement standards

2011 Wisconsin Act 21

limited the authority of an agency to promulgate rules

interpreting the provisions of any statute enforced or administered by the agency by

providing that all of the following apply to the promulgation of such a rule:

1. A statutory or nonstatutory provision containing a statement or declaration

of legislative intent, purpose, findings, or policy does not confer rule-making

authority on the agency or augment the agency's rule-making authority beyond the

rule-making authority that is explicitly conferred on the agency by the legislature.

2. A statutory provision describing the agency's general powers or duties does

not confer rule-making authority on the agency or augment the agency's

rule-making authority beyond the rule-making authority that is explicitly

conferred on the agency by the legislature.

3. A statutory provision containing a specific standard, requirement, or

threshold does not confer on the agency the authority to promulgate, enforce, or

administer a rule that contains a standard, requirement, or threshold that is more

restrictive than the standard, requirement, or threshold contained in the statutory

provision.

This bill eliminates those limitations on an agency's authority to promulgate

rules interpreting the provisions of a statute enforced or administered by the agency.

2011 Wisconsin Act 21

also prohibited an agency from implementing or

enforcing any standard, requirement, or threshold, including as a term or condition

of any license issued by the agency, unless the standard, requirement, or threshold

What it would cost

Fiscal estimates filed by state agencies, as official PDFs

Sponsors

Introduced by: Berceau (D) , Bewley (D) , C. Taylor (D) , Fields (D) , Grigsby (D) , Hebl (D) , Roys (D) , Sinicki (D) , Turner (D)

3 cosponsors

Bernard Schaber (D) , Risser (D) , Taylor (D)

Votes

Suspending the rules (to take a vote immediately) needs a two-thirds majority — a higher bar than passing the bill, which needs a simple majority. That's why a suspension motion can show more Ayes than the passage vote that follows it. Glossary

Assembly: Refused to suspend rules to withdraw from committee on Judiciary and Ethics and take up, Ayes 35, Noes 56

Failed 35–56 Mar 15, 2012 official source full page

No individual roll call was recorded for this vote. Committee votes and some older sessions record totals only.

Full history

  1. Nov 23, 2011 · Assembly

    Introduced by Representatives C. Taylor, Hebl, Bewley, Berceau, Fields, Grigsby, Roys, Sinicki and Turner;Cosponsored by Senators Risser and Taylor

  2. Nov 23, 2011 · Assembly

    Read first time and referred to committee on Judiciary and Ethics

  3. Nov 30, 2011 · Assembly

    Representative Bernard Schaber added as a coauthor

  4. Dec 7, 2011 · Assembly

    Fiscal estimate received

  5. Dec 7, 2011 · Assembly

    Fiscal estimate received

  6. Dec 12, 2011 · Assembly

    Fiscal estimate received

  7. Dec 12, 2011 · Assembly

    Fiscal estimate received

  8. Dec 13, 2011 · Assembly

    Fiscal estimate received

  9. Dec 13, 2011 · Assembly

    Fiscal estimate received

  10. Dec 27, 2011 · Assembly

    Fiscal estimate received

  11. Jan 9, 2012 · Assembly

    Fiscal estimate received

  12. Jan 25, 2012 · Assembly

    Fiscal estimate received

  13. Jan 31, 2012 · Assembly

    Fiscal estimate received

  14. Feb 3, 2012 · Assembly

    Fiscal estimate received

  15. Mar 15, 2012 · Assembly

    Refused to suspend rules to withdraw from committee on Judiciary and Ethics and take up, Ayes 35, Noes 56

  16. Mar 23, 2012 · Assembly

    Failed to pass pursuant to Senate Joint Resolution 1