Regulations With An Expiration Date

I like this idea.

Under the proposal from Assembly Majority Leader Jim Steineke, R-Kaukauna, and Sen. Alberta Darling, R-River Hills, new regulations would expire after seven years unless in the year before an expiration date a state agency flagged the regulation for review.

Legislators on certain committees would be able to object to rules being extended, which would then require the rule to be rewritten and go through the normal rule-making process.

Existing regulations would sunset on a timeline to be set by the Legislature’s Joint Committee for Review of Administrative Rules. The bill also requires agencies to eliminate the use of words and phrases that are outdated or that are now understood to be derogatory or offensive.

The bill would effectively flip the onus for cleaning up the state’s hundreds of pages of administrative rules from legislators to state agencies, Steineke said. Rather than legislators combing through the administrative code for rules they want to eliminate, agencies would have to keep tabs on which rules they want to keep.

There are oodles of regulations that are outdated, unenforced, unenforceable, or downright stupid. This would weed those out and leave only the important regulations in place.

27 Responses to Regulations With An Expiration Date

  1. billphoto says:

    “regulations that are outdated, … or downright stupid.”  Can we start with Minimum Markup, please.

  2. Le Roi du Nord says:

    Who determines which regulations are “stupid”, or important” ??  WMC??  WDEC??   Stepp ??

    “The bill also requires agencies to eliminate the use of words and phrases that are outdated or that are now understood to be derogatory or offensive”.   Like climate change, eh ?

  3. Owen Owen says:

    How about the duly elected representatives of the people in the legislature?

  4. Kevin Scheunemann says:

    This would be outstanding!

    Regulators would have to justify rules making water unaffordable for poor and middle class.

  5. Paul says:

    I see Le Roi du Bore managed to shit his pants again.

  6. billphoto says:

    I think this rule should be expanded to all existing regulations/resolutions.  October 2017, Washington County quietly passed the “employee pay parity” resolution.  This gave all County employees pay parity with private business but assigned zero value to their Cadillac health care and taxpayers backed pension.  The County still has on the books regulations about where you can tie your horse up and penalties for spitting (your chew) in the wrong place.

    Sunsetting all, I would assume on some kind of a staggered timeline, would force unelected bureaucrats and their elected buddies to “save” their favorites.  Imagine the repercussions if our public servants had to justify giving elite pay status to County employees or taking our money with the stadium tax or County sales tax on a regular basis or loose the revenue! http://www.bootsandsabers.com/wp-content/plugins/wp-monalisa/icons/wpml_cry.gif

     

  7. Le Roi du Nord says:

    Owen:

    That is the fly in the ointment.  Having a legislator(s) (Legislators on certain committees would be able to object to rules being extended) make those decisions is scary.  Nass objecting to any UW regulation, Tiffany or Jarchow cleaning up DNR, Lasee taking care of women’s rights or requirements about living in your district, etc….  I guess the devil is in the details.   And what happens when the legislature flips, outrage from the minority?

    petite paul:  ever the class guy.  Do you text your mother with those fingers?

  8. Owen Owen says:

    Having a legislator(s) (Legislators on certain committees would be able to object to rules being extended) make those decisions is scary.”

    Ummm… isn’t that how representative government is supposed to work? You know – we elect representatives to make policy decisions on our behalf? The alternative is an unelected government functionary making the decision.

  9. Le Roi du Nord says:

    If one person, say Tiffany, were to have the ability to nix a regulation, then no it isn’t.  The legislature is a deliberative body and no one person in it should be able to set policy.

    And again I ask, is your definition of  “stupid” the same as mine ?  Or is important the same to all ?   This proposal put too much power in the hands of the few.

  10. Le Roi du Nord says:

    kevin:

    “Regulators would have to justify rules making water unaffordable for poor and middle class”.

    Can you provide proof of that claim?  Provide some data and actual facts to back it up?

  11. Paul says:

    A white nationalist troll like you is in no position to demand proof of anything.

  12. billphoto says:

    I’m with Owen on this one.  Obviously, the bureaucrats have little interest in the consequences of their actions but it is also obvious that the political machine has no interest in supporting candidates that do not toe the party line and follow orders.   Washington County still has regulations of the books about where you can tie up your horse and fines for spitting (presumably your chew) in the wrong place.  Sunsetting all would eliminate a lot of needless laws and bring what “they” want to save into the daylight.

    Public hearings seem to cumbersome but what mechanism would work to short circuit the shenanigans?

    Most taxpayers have no idea what really goes on.  Our County sales tax was never put to the voters.  Although it has a sunset date, in an open meeting, Supervisors found out at the last renewal that the Cabelas loan was tied to the sales tax so it is defacto permanent and the bureaucrats cry they cannot live without the money.

  13. Kevin Scheunemann says:

    Nord:

    Exhibit #1:  DNR regulatory mandates on Kewaskum WWTP.    Forced rates up 86%!!!!

    I appreciate you letting me go in for the easy slam dunk on this question.

     

  14. Le Roi du Nord says:

    “Regulators would have to justify rules making water unaffordable for poor and middle class”.

    And how does your WWTP play into this.  Kewaskum water (drinking water) rates are right in the middle of the pack statewide as far as price.  Be glad you don’t live in Hartford or Florence or Abbottsford.  You can look them all up on the PSC commission web site.

  15. Kevin Scheunemann says:

    Hello McFly…..

    Drinking water rates are the front end of the bill.   Sewer rates are the back end of the bill.   In Kewaskum sewer rate is 75% of total water bill.

    Sewer rates are high because of out of control regulations and DNR.

    Your retarded (I normally don’t name call, but it was so needed here) analysis only takes in 25% of the bill.   So your comprison to other municipalities on only 25% of the bill is ridiculous.

    Besides, just because the DNR bullied other communities worse than Kewaskum, (where vote was 5 yes and 2 no….I was 1 of the “no” to the bureaucratic bullying you embrace) does not justify the systemic problem.

  16. Walt Kowalski says:

    Kewaskum residents in certain neighborhoods are also not footing the bill (w/village assistance) for sewer work mandated by the same DNR.

    Be careful there Kevin next thing you there wont be a watershed along HWY 45 also.

    Nord knows all sees all.

  17. Kevin Scheunemann says:

    If you are refering to the Storm water utility, and storm intercepter, mandates by DNR, I agree, that is even more onerous and ridiculous.   I have been opposed to that.

    DNR also threatened and bullied municipalities on that as well.

  18. Le Roi du Nord says:

    kevin:

    Here is your quote: “Regulators would have to justify rules making water unaffordable for poor and middle class”.  Now explain how your WWTP or storm water rates tie into the drinking water rates.  Bear in mind that both water and the sewer rates are set by the PSC, which has been under conservative leadership since walker was elected.  DNR has nothing to to with those rate determinations. You can look all of this up on the PSC website.

    All you are doing is changing the subject when caught in a misstatement of facts.  And you have yet to provide any proof .  No one expected less.

    walt:  I suspect you are commenting on things without any knowledge or experience.  You really should have a clue as to what you are talking about.

  19. Kevin Scheunemann says:

    Nord,

    Do you think we had to raise sewer rates 86% in one jump because we enjoyed it?

    It was needed to pay for the DNR bullying.

    Clearly, you do not get it as part of the bullying bureaucratic class.

  20. Le Roi du Nord says:

    Clearly you don’t understand the process for setting rates, refuse to learn anything about it, and constantly change the subject.  I am not part of any “bullying bureaucratic class” anymore than you are.  What I am is a rational thinker unwilling to blame others for my problems like you do.

    Your claim, “Regulators would have to justify rules making water unaffordable for poor and middle class”,  is false.

  21. Kevin Scheunemann says:

    Nord,

    Sewer rates are not subject to PSC review.

    Water rates are subject to PSC review only if the proposed increase is over 3%.

    Get with the program.

    Don’t accuse me of not knowing what I am talking about when you are the clueless one.

     

  22. Le Roi du Nord says:

    Ok, so your statement is still false, eh?

  23. Jason says:

    Just waiting for Al to throw in the towel and close with “have the last word.” Lol

  24. Paul says:

    Pity to the podunk town that elected this WN troll to anything resembling responsibility.

  25. billphoto says:

    Hey, give the troll a break.  It is tough to get re-elected when you are the only name on the ballot and the local political machine has worked tirelessly to destroy any who would challenge the status quo.  Expecting anything other than insults, word parsing or just plain lies is really expecting too much.  Leave the troll alone and post your opinion to share with others so we all benefit from your perspective.

  26. Kevin Scheunemann says:

    Oh Nord,

    I’ll bite again, how in the world is my statement false?

     

  27. Kevin Scheunemann says:

    This thread is very instructive on why this legislation is so badly needed.

    We have an entire bureucratic regulatory structure full of Nord’s that don’t give a rip about the average taxpayer and deny the ultimate consequences of their lies and bullying.

    It’s a “1984” mentality we are combating with state regulatory bureaucrats.

Leave a Reply