Late this morning, Rep. Harper presented H.B. 91, Utah Administrative Rulemaking Act Amendments, on the House floor. The bill passed unamended on a vote of 62 yeas and 0 nays with 13 absent.
After the bill passed, Rep. Harper moved intent language. As of 2:30 p.m., we have not been able to locate a copy of the intent language anywhere on the Legislature’s web site. As memory serves, the intent language went something like, “It is the intent of the legislature that failure to comply with 63-46a-4(3) and (4) many not be used to contest the procedural validity of a rule.” When we obtain a copy of the language, we’ll update this post.
As an observer of the process, it seems as though opting to handle this issue using intent language raises more questions than it addresses. Is the protection offered by the intent language somehow less than it would otherwise have been had it been included as part of the statute? Who will have access to, or know about, the intent language? Will the language be included in the Utah Code available from the Legislature’s web page, or the unannotated version used by most people in the state? Intent language in the appropriations act expires at the end of the fiscal year. What is the life span of this type of intent language?
— Ken Hansen