Bills · 2011-2012 Regular Session
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.
- Introduced, stopped here
- Passes Assembly, not reached
- Passes Senate, not reached
- Governor signs, not reached
- 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
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 pageNo individual roll call was recorded for this vote. Committee votes and some older sessions record totals only.
Full history
- Nov 23, 2011 · Assembly
Introduced by Representatives C. Taylor, Hebl, Bewley, Berceau, Fields, Grigsby, Roys, Sinicki and Turner;Cosponsored by Senators Risser and Taylor
- Nov 23, 2011 · Assembly
Read first time and referred to committee on Judiciary and Ethics
- Nov 30, 2011 · Assembly
Representative Bernard Schaber added as a coauthor
- Dec 7, 2011 · Assembly
Fiscal estimate received
- Dec 7, 2011 · Assembly
Fiscal estimate received
- Dec 12, 2011 · Assembly
Fiscal estimate received
- Dec 12, 2011 · Assembly
Fiscal estimate received
- Dec 13, 2011 · Assembly
Fiscal estimate received
- Dec 13, 2011 · Assembly
Fiscal estimate received
- Dec 27, 2011 · Assembly
Fiscal estimate received
- Jan 9, 2012 · Assembly
Fiscal estimate received
- Jan 25, 2012 · Assembly
Fiscal estimate received
- Jan 31, 2012 · Assembly
Fiscal estimate received
- Feb 3, 2012 · Assembly
Fiscal estimate received
- Mar 15, 2012 · Assembly
Refused to suspend rules to withdraw from committee on Judiciary and Ethics and take up, Ayes 35, Noes 56
- Mar 23, 2012 · Assembly
Failed to pass pursuant to Senate Joint Resolution 1