Reining in the regulators More than 3,500 agency rules have been adopted since 1996
The state of Washington's regulatory climate is best summed
up by Governor Gary Locke's Competitiveness Council:
The current regulatory structure unnecessarily delays projects, increases
project cost, creates unnecessary uncertainty, reduces operating flexibility,
and increases barriers to business growth. It stirs hostility toward government.
It wastes resources, increasing government costs. It leads to angry applicants
and it encourages project opponents to manipulate the permitting system.
Despite the governor's previous efforts to rein in the rule-making propensity
of the state's agencies, more than 3,500 rules have been adopted since 1996
an increase of more than 38,118 pages of new or revised regulations
Washington businesses and citizens must maneuver through. Since 1996, agencies
have averaged 589 new or revised rules per year. That's an average of 6,353
pages each year or just under eleven pages per rule.
Washington agencies' rule-making activity
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
Total
Adopted rules
555
486
634
638
648
571
3,532
Adopted rules in pages
5,343
4,168
7,109
6,615
7,132
7,751
38,118
Source: Code Reviser's Office: "Agency
Rule Making Activity: Table 1"
There have been some recent efforts to address the regulatory problems
in the state. House Bill 2671 created a permit assistance center in the
Office of Financial Management to aid businesses in understanding the permits
required of them. House Bill 2049 created a buffer zone so businesses would
have "a reasonable period of time to correct violations during a technical
assistance visit before any civil penalty provided for by law is imposed
for those violations." Essentially this allows businesses the opportunity
to learn of the new regulations imposed upon them before they face penalties
for violation of the new rules.
Unfortunately, these efforts have been followed by Governor Locke's decision
to ignore the recommendation of his own Competitiveness Council that he
delay the implementation of Labor & Industries' new extensive ergonomic
rules.
"There is fear in some industries that these new rules might require
costly investments in new equipment, ergonomic consultants, and detailed
studies. I believe these fears are unfounded. However, as the national leader
it is incumbent upon us to proceed carefully." - Governor Locke (3/5/02
press release)
What is telling in the governor's defense of the new ergonomic rules is
that Washington is the only state in the nation imposing them. The federal
government has already abandoned earlier attempts to enforce federal ergonomic
standards. Governor Locke did ultimately decide to delay any penalties for
violation of the new ergonomic rules until July 2004 to alleviate the impact
of his decision.
The ergonomics rules are the subject of a current lawsuit in Thurston County
Superior Court. A coalition of businesses is trying to have the rules invalidated
on the grounds that "among other challenges: that the rule has exceeded
its statutory authority; that the rule relies on inadequate medical and
scientific data; that the cost benefit analysis is flawed; and that the
agency (L&I) has failed to coordinate the rule with other laws."
Both Governor Locke and former Governor Mike Lowry have issued Executive
Orders (93-06 in 1993 & 97-02 in 1996) to address the
regulatory burden in Washington. Both times the Executive Orders resulted
in a decrease in the number of existing regulatory pages. Unfortunately,
nothing has prevented the adoption of new regulations in the state's agencies.
To fully address and gain control over the regulatory nature of the state's
agencies it may be useful to take a page from New York Governor George Pataki's
success in tackling his state's regulatory structure.
With New York facing a growing regulatory burden due to the essentially
unchecked rule-making authority of state agencies, Governor Pataki created
the Governor's Office of Regulatory Reform (GORR). Now, all proposed agency
rules must comply with eleven GORR criteria prior to approval and a GORR
review after implementation.
Washington needs the same kind of reforms. EFF proposes that all agency
rules be signed by the governor just as all legislation must receive the
approval of the executive branch. This would ensure more public discourse
of new rules and provide a mechanism for direct accountability to citizens
for all new rules implemented. Along with the governor's signature, EFF
suggests that all agency rules be subject to a six-year sunset review.
The restoration of Washington's business climate is dependent upon resolving
the state's regulatory burden. This must remain a primary focus of the state's
elected officials and agency heads.
At a March 23, 2005, House Appropriations hearing on a bill to gut the voter-approved I-601 spending limit, Rep. Jim McIntire (D) asked a supporter of I-601’s two-third supermajority requirement for the legislature to raise taxes the following question:
"Can you name a time when we [legislators] have actually not just set it [supermajority requirement] aside by majority vote? I mean, this is in many respects a procedural motion that has no bearing. It’s a statutory constraint that cannot constrain any legislature that chooses as a majority to set it aside . . . have we ever used a supermajority [to raise taxes]?"