State agency oversight bills proposed

The Executive Board heard testimony Feb. 6 on two bills that would increase legislative oversight of state agencies.

LB909, introduced by Papillion Sen. Bill Kintner, would amend the Administrative Procedures Act to require state agencies that promulgate rules and regulations to submit a list of all agency regulations that are currently in effect and have been in effect for more than five years.

Agencies also would be required to cite the legislative basis for each regulation.

Kintner said the list would increase transparency and help determine whether any regulations should be repealed or amended.

“I want every regulation to come before the Performance [Audit] Committee every five years,” he said.

LB996, introduced by Lincoln Sen. Amanda McGill, would require state agencies to respond within four business days to written requests for information from a member of or employee of the Legislature. The bill would not apply to political subdivisions.

If a legal basis exists for denial of access to information, or if the entire request could not be fulfilled within the time constraint, an agency would be required to provide a written denial or explanation.

McGill said the bill would provide clarity and consistency to the process surrounding legislative requests for information from state agencies. The timeline requirement in the bill mirrors that of a public records request, she said.

“The bill is not intended to be punitive or to overburden agencies,” McGill said.

Former state senator Loran Schmit testified in support of both bills.

“Each of these bills in its own way is an attempt to solve a problem that should not exist,” he said. “There should be no reluctance on the part of a state agency to respond to a request for information.”

Rhonda Lahm, director of the Nebraska Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV), testified in opposition to LB996. The DMV has been diligent in responding to information requests, she said, but the department must abide by the Uniform Motor Vehicle Records Disclosure Act.

Lahm said the bill as introduced may conflict with the Act, which requires a written agreement between the DMV and the requesting entity.

The committee took no immediate action on either proposal.