by Julie Pelegrin

Each year, executive branch agencies in Colorado adopt between 400 and 500 sets of rules creating many thousands of pages of rules and accompanying materials. Specifically, in 2018 alone there were 457 sets of rules adopted. Counting the rules and corresponding materials, that totals up to 26,971 pages. That’s a lot of rules! And every one of those rules, along with the corresponding materials, was read and analyzed by a staff member of the Office of Legislative Legal Services (OLLS).

This rule review function provides an instructive example of how the vague constitutional concept of separation of powers actually works between the legislative and executive branches. The legislature has the authority to make the laws. But in some instances, it makes more sense for the persons working directly with a program to decide the implementing details. In those situations, the legislature delegates some of its legislative authority to an executive branch department, allowing it to adopt rules. However, in adopting rules, the department must comply with statutes and cannot go beyond the authority that the legislature delegated to it. To ensure this does not happen, the legislature retains the ability to review the executive branch department’s rules and approve only those rules that are within the department’s rule-making authority and do not conflict with state or federal law.

This process for reviewing and approving executive branch department rules is found in the State Administrative Procedure Act (APA). The APA requires each department to submit every rule that it adopts or revises within a one-year period to the OLLS for review under the supervision of the Committee on Legal Services (Committee). The standard of review is based on language in §24-4-103 (8)(a), C.R.S., which states, “No rule shall be issued except within the power delegated to the agency and as authorized by law.” The vast majority of rules meet these requirements. But sometimes a rule conflicts with a statute or the constitution or does not fit within the limits of the department’s rule-making authority. At that point, the Committee and the General Assembly turn to the process laid out in the APA.

The APA establishes a year-round cycle for reviewing rules.  Under §24-4-103 (8), C.R.S., rules adopted during the one-year period from November 1 through October 31 automatically expire on the next May 15, unless the General Assembly extends the rules by passing a bill.  This annual bill is called the Rule Review Bill and is sponsored by the Committee. This year, it’s introduced as S.B. 19-168. The Rule Review Bill postpones the automatic expiration of all of the adopted department rules, except for those rules listed in the bill that the Committee has decided should expire because the rules: 1) lack statutory authority, 2) exceed statutory authority, or 3) conflict with a state or federal statute or constitutional provision.

During the process of reviewing the rules, if the OLLS staff finds one of those three grounds for challenging a rule, the staff contacts the department to discuss the issues with the rule. If the department disagrees with the analysis or is unable to fix the problems identified with the rule, the staff schedules the rule issue for a hearing before the Committee. The OLLS staff writes a memo for the Committee explaining its analysis, and the department may also submit a responsive memo to the Committee.

At the hearing, the OLLS staff and if, they choose to appear at the hearing and make a presentation, the department staff or the department of law staff representing the department explain their positions to the Committee, and the Committee takes public testimony.  At the end of the hearing, the Committee votes to either extend the rule through the Rule Review Bill or allow the rule to expire. The Committee bases its decision on the legal question of the authority of the rule—not on whether the rule in question is good or bad policy for the state.  After the Rule Review Bill passes, the OLLS staff transmits the bill to the Secretary of State’s office, which removes any expired rules from the Colorado Code of Regulations.

Sometimes a department will seek a change to a statute to provide authority for a rule. The Committee will not carry a bill to do this, but if an individual legislator introduces and passes such a bill, the Committee will amend the Rule Review Bill so that the newly authorized rule does not expire.

Another legislative oversight function that the OLLS carries out relates to tracking legislation that requires or authorizes departments to adopt rules. Many legislators, after passing bills that create new programs, later ask, “Did the department ever adopt rules to implement my bill?”  Section 24-4-103 (8)(e), C.R.S., requires the OLLS to identify rules related to newly enacted bills and notify prime sponsors and cosponsors when the department adopts rules required or authorized by the new legislation. The OLLS sends out e-mail notices to prime sponsors and co-sponsors when the rules are adopted.

But what if you want to know whether a department ever adopted rules to implement a bill you heard in a committee of reference?  Or what if you’re a legislator and you no longer have the e-mail notice?  Anyone can look up rule implementation information at any time on the OLLS’s homepage under a tab entitled Rule Review. The OLLS maintains a chart that is organized by committees of reference and lists each bill for which rules are adopted.  The chart also provides a link to the rule information that each department files during the rule adoption process.

Section 24-4-103 (8)(e), C.R.S., also requires the OLLS to notify the current members of the applicable committees of reference when these rules are adopted.  Each January, the OLLS sends an email notice to the committees of reference with the chart of rules that the OLLS has compiled.

So, while the legislature is willing, when appropriate, to delegate some of its authority to the executive branch by authorizing a department to adopt rules, the legislature keeps a close eye on how that authority is exercised, ensuring that the department stays within the lines.

by Thomas Morris

In our previous article about the history of rule review, we looked at the process from its pre-legislative oversight era to 1976, when the General Assembly required legislative oversight of executive branch rules. In today’s article, we pick up one year later, when the General Assembly made more changes to the process.

Legislative review of existing rules. In 1977, just one year after directing committees of reference or the Committee on Legal Services (COLS) to conduct the initial level of legislative oversight of new rules, the General Assembly enacted a law[1] that, among several other significant changes, removed the authority to amend a rule and directed the “legislative drafting office” (the predecessor to the OLLS) to conduct the initial review:

24-4-103.  Rule-making – procedure. (8) (d)  All rules adopted or amended on or after July 1, 1976, including temporary or emergency rules, shall be submitted by the adopting agency to the appropriate committees of reference of the general assembly, if the general assembly is in session or to legislative drafting office in the form and manner prescribed by the committee on legal services. Said rules and amendments to existing rules shall be filed by and in such office and shall be first reviewed by the staff of said committee to determine whether said rules and amendments are within the agency’s rule-making authority, and for later review by the committee of legal services if the general assembly is not in session, for its opinion as to whether the rules conform with paragraph (a) of this subsection (8). The official certificate of the director of the legislative drafting office as to the fact of submission or the date of submission or a rule as shown by the records of his office, as well as to the fact of nonsubmission as shown by the nonexistence of such records, shall be received and held in all civil cases as competent evidence of the facts contained therein. Any such rule or amendment to an existing rule issued by any agency without being so submitted to the appropriate committees of reference or within twenty days after the date of the attorney general’s opinion rendered thereon to the legislative drafting office for review by the committee of legal services shall be void. The staff’s finding shall be presented to said committee at a public meeting held after timely notice to the public and affected agencies. The committee on legal services shall, on affirmative vote, submit such rules, comments, and resolutions as deemed appropriate to the legislative committees of reference proposed legislation at the next regular session of the general assembly. The committee on legal services shall be the committee of reference for any bill introduced pursuant to this paragraph (d). A committee of reference, or the committee on legal services, or Any member of the general assembly may introduce a bill which amends or rescinds or deletes portions of the rule. Rejection of such a bill does not constitute legislative approval of the rule. Only that portion of any rule specifically disapproved by bill shall no longer be effective, and that portion of the rule which remains after deletion of a portion thereof shall retain its character as an administrative rule. Passage of a bill repealing a rule does not result in revival of a predecessor rule.  Where the rule or amendment to an existing rule will have a fiscal impact on the state or any of its political subdivisions, the agency shall include a fiscal statement thereof with the rule or amendment submitted to the appropriate committees of reference or the committee on legal services legislative drafting office. This paragraph (d) does not apply to rules of agency organization or general statements of policy which are not meant to be binding as rules. For the purpose of performing the functions assigned it by this paragraph (d), the committee on legal services, with the approval of the speaker of the house of representatives and the president of the senate, may appoint subcommittees from the membership of the general assembly. In addition, the said committee shall establish a program for the systematic review of all agency rules adopted prior to July 1, 1976, and in effect at the time of such review, which review shall be completed within a reasonable time not to exceed five years.

Significantly, the final sentence of this statute directed the COLS to “establish a program for the systematic review of all agency rules adopted prior to July 1, 1976”.[2] In 1979, evidently to implement this program for legislative review of existing rules, the General Assembly enacted HB79-1063, which:

• Provided for the automatic expiration of all new rules on the June 1 of the year after their adoption unless the expiration is postponed by bill;[3]
• Struck the final sentence of section 24-4-103 (8)(d), C.R.S.;[4] and
• Enacted section 24-4-108, C.R.S.[5]

Section 24-4-108 (1) provided that, “[u]nless extended by the general assembly acting by bill, all of the rules and regulations of the principal departments shall expire on the dates specified in this section.” Subsections (2) through (6) of this section then specified, respectively, that all existing rules of the various departments would expire on July 1 of the five years commencing on or after July 1, 1980. Subsection (7) specified that the General Assembly could “postpone by bill the expiration of rules and regulations, or any portion thereof, as often as necessary, but no such postponement shall exceed four years.”[6] The General Assembly also amended subsection (7) to authorize the COLS to “establish procedures for the implementation of review of rules and regulations contemplated by this section including, but not limited to, a procedure for annual review of rules and regulations which may conflict with statutes or statutory changes adopted subsequent to review of a department’s rules and regulations pursuant to this section.”[7]

After this 5-year legislative review of existing rules ran its course,[8] the statutes governing the legislative review of rules assumed much of their current form:

• The validity of existing rules is not reviewed unless included in a submittal that amends existing rules or adds new rules;
• All new rules must be submitted to the attorney general and OLLS for review of their statutory authority;
• All new rules automatically expire on the May 15 that follows the one-year period from Novem ber 1 to October 31, unless the General Assembly postpones the expiration acting by bill; and
• The OLLS takes rules that it believes lack statutory authority or conflict with statute to the COLS, which holds a hearing to make its determination. Those determinations are then compiled into the annual rule review bill.

For a LegiSource article that explains the current standards and procedures for legislative rule review in more detail, see “Parsing Powers: Legislative Review of State Department Rules“.

 

---

[1] HB 77-1646; L. 77, p. 1141, §1.

[2] Recall that the General Assembly had already directed the attorney general to review all existing rules in section 3-16-2 (8)(c) (enacted by SB 67-102) (see footnote 7 above).

[3] L. 79, p. 845, §1. The General Assembly later modified law governing the automatic expiration of rules, section 24-4-103 (8)(c)(I), C.R.S., by specifying that all rules adopted during the one-year period from November 1 to the following October 31 automatically expire on the May 15 that follows the one-year period unless the General Assembly postpones the expiration acting by bill. SB 93-035; L. 93, p. 496, §1.

[4] L. 79, p. 845, §2.

[5] L. 79, p. 846, §3.

[6]The General Assembly soon repealed the four-year limit on postponement. SB 81-294; L. 81, p. 1145, §1.

[7] SB 81-294; L.81, p. 1145, §1.

[8] The legislature enacted several bills to repeal parts or all of subsections (2) through (6) of section 24-4-108, C.R.S., from 1980 to 1984.

by Thomas Morris

Colorado’s constitution vests all legislative authority in the General Assembly[1]. It also requires a separation of powers between the “three distinct departments,—the legislative, executive and judicial” by specifying that “no person . . . charged with the exercise of powers properly belonging to one of these departments shall exercise any power properly belonging to either of the others . . .”.[2] How, then, can executive branch agencies promulgate rules, which are a type of law[3] that seemingly should be enacted by the General Assembly?

Pursuant to well-established principles of administrative law, a legislature may delegate its law-making power to an executive agency, but only if there are “sufficient statutory standards and safeguards and administrative standards and safeguards, in combination, to protect against the unnecessary and uncontrolled exercise of discretionary power.”[4] Accordingly, it is fairly common for a legislature, once it has delegated rule-making authority to an agency, to review the agency’s exercise of that authority to ensure that the legislature’s intent has been carried out faithfully.

Since 1976, the Administrative Procedure Act (APA)[5] has required Colorado’s rule-making agencies to submit their new rules to the General Assembly for review. But the scope, procedures, and standards of that review have evolved over time. This article, the first of two regarding the rule review process, briefly summarizes that evolution.

Pre-legislative oversight era

The General Assembly enacted the earliest version of the APA in 1959.[6] This version of the APA did not provide for legislative rule review but did specify the following standards[7] for determining whether a rule is authorized:

No rule shall be issued except within the power delegated to the agency and as authorized by law. A rule shall not be deemed to be within the statutory authority and jurisdiction of any agency merely because such rule is not contrary to the specific provisions of a statute.

The General Assembly first provided for the systematic review of rules’ statutory authority in 1967[8] by directing the attorney general to review both new[9] and existing rules:

3-16-2.  Rule making procedure. (8) (b) On and after July 1, 1967, no rule shall be issued, nor existing rule amended, by any agency unless it shall first be submitted by the issuing agency to the attorney general for his opinion as to its constitutionality and legality. Any rule, or amendment to an existing rule, issued by any agency without being so submitted to the attorney general shall be void.

(c) All rules of any agency in effect on July 1, 1967, also shall be submitted, on or before December 31, 1967, to the attorney general for his opinion as to its constitutionality and legality, and no such rule shall continue in effect after December 21, 1968, unless so submitted.

Early legislative oversight

Evidently concluding that more oversight was needed, 10 years after directing the attorney general to review both new and existing rules, in 1976, the General Assembly added a law[10] that, for the first time, provided for systematic legislative review of new rules:

24-4-103.  Rule-making – procedure. (8) (d)  All rules adopted or amended on or after July 1, 1976, shall be submitted by the adopting agency to the appropriate committees of reference of the general assembly, if the general assembly is in session or to the committee of legal services if the general assembly is not in session, for its opinion as to whether the rules conform with paragraph (a) of this subsection (8). Any such rule or amendment to an existing rule issued by any agency without being so submitted to the appropriate committees of reference or to the committee of legal services shall be void. The committee on legal services shall, on affirmative vote, submit such rules, comments, and resolutions as deemed appropriate to the legislative committees of reference at the next regular session of the general assembly. A committee of reference, or the committee on legal services, or any member of the general assembly may introduce a bill which amends or rescinds the rule. Rejection of such a bill does not constitute legislative approval of the rule. Only that portion of any rule specifically disapproved by bill shall no longer be effective. Where the rule or amendment to an existing rule will have a fiscal impact on the state or any of its political subdivisions, the agency shall include a fiscal statement thereof with the rule or amendment submitted to the appropriate committees of reference or the committee on legal services. This section does not apply to rules of agency organization or general statements of policy which are not meant to be binding as rules.

This initial requirement for legislative review of new rules differs from current procedure in several respects:

• The review was conducted by committees of reference, or, if the legislature was not in session, the committee on legal services (COLS); current law directs the Office Legislative Legal Services (OLLS) to conduct the initial review;
• It appears that, if COLS determined that a rule lacked statutory authority, it was directed to submit a “resolution” to an appropriate committee of reference, although COLS could, along with a committee of reference or any legislator, also file a bill; current law directs COLS to file a bill;
• The submitted rule must include a fiscal impact statement; current legislative review of rules does not specifically relate to fiscal impacts; and
• Legislation resulting from the review would “amend[] or rescind[]” the rule; current law provides for “automatic termination” of all new rules and an annual bill that “postpones the expiration” of all rules other than those specifically listed.

Not long after these changes, the General Assembly enacted more significant changes to the rule review process. In part 2 of this article, we’ll explore those changes and the rule review process from 1976 through its current iteration.

 

---

[1] “The legislative power of the state shall be vested in the general assembly . . .” Art. V, §1 (1) of the Colorado Constitution.

[2] Art. III of the Colorado Constitution.

[3] “‘Rule’” means the whole or any part of every agency statement of general applicability and future effect implementing, interpreting, or declaring law . . .”. §24-4-102 (15), C.R.S.

[4] Cottrell v. City and County of Denver, 636 P.2d 703, 709 (Colo. 1981).

[5] §24-4-103 (8)(d), C.R.S.

[6] HB 59-212; L. 59, p. 159, §2.

[7] These standards, currently codified in section 24-4-103 (8)(a), C.R.S., were initially codified in section 3-16-2 (8), C.R.S. 1953 (cumulative supplement) and then codified in the same section in the 1963 C.R.S.

[8] SB 67-102; L. 67, p. 300, §2.

[9] Section 3-16-2 (8)(b), C.R.S. 1963, providing for the attorney general’s review of new rules, continues in essentially the same form today, codified as section 24-4-103 (8)(b), C.R.S.

[10] SB 76-076; L. 76, p. 582, §15.

by Patti Dahlberg

“Legislative oversight” generally refers to a legislature’s review and evaluation of selected activities, services, and operations and the general performance of the executive branch of government. The legislature exercises this oversight to ensure that the executive branch administers new and existing programs efficiently, effectively, and in a manner consistent with legislative intent. Oversight has long been the focus of certain legislative statutory committees and has also become a required part of the hearings and work of the standing committees of reference.

According to a National Conference of State Legislatures article on the Separation of Powers – Legislative Oversight:

• “Legislative oversight takes many forms. Most often, legislative standing committees are responsible for continuous review of the work of the state agencies in their subject areas. Legislatures also have created special committees or staff agencies designed specifically to evaluate agency operation and performance. In addition, legislatures may review (and sometimes, veto) the rules and regulations developed by executive agencies to implement law.”

In Colorado, ongoing legislative oversight of state agencies occurs through the following methods:

Committee on Legal Services – review of administrative rules – §24-4-103, C.R.S.
The legislature’s review of administrative rules is one way in which the General Assembly exercises legislative oversight of the executive branch. A “rule” is a formal written statement of law that a state agency adopts to carry out statutory policies and administer programs. The General Assembly’s role in the rule-making process is in authorizing an agency to make rules and then reviewing and, if necessary, invalidating rules that are not within the agency’s statutory authority or that conflict with state law. The Committee on Legal Services exercises some of the General Assembly’s rulemaking oversight responsibilities by tracking legislation that requires the adoption of rules and notifying sponsors when required or authorized rules have been adopted and by annually introducing a bill that extends rules that are within the agencies’ statutory authority and allows rules to expire that are outside the agencies’ authority or that conflict with law. For more information on the rule review function of the legislature see “Legislative Oversight of State Agency Rule-making”.

Joint Budget Committee – fiscal oversight of state budget and finances – §2-3-201, C.R.S.
The Joint Budget Committee (JBC) is charged with analyzing the management, operations, programs, and fiscal needs of the departments of state government as part of creating a balanced budget, which the state Constitution requires. The Governor reviews the executive-branch budget requests, sets priorities for funding, and sends the executive-branch budget request to the JBC for consideration. The JBC reviews the Governor’s proposed budget and holds public hearings with each state agency and institution to discuss priorities and answer questions. Based on the information gathered in these hearings and other information provided by the JBC staff, the JBC drafts the annual general appropriations bill, which is introduced during the second half of each legislative session.

Legislative Audit Committee – review of agency performance – §2-3-101, C.R.S.
The Legislative Audit Committee (LAC) assists in overseeing state government by reviewing the audits that the State Auditor performs of all departments, institutions, and agencies of state government and of other public agencies, as well as reviewing other reports the State Auditor may prepare. In addition, the LAC reviews a number of annual performance audits required by §2-7-204, C.R.S., and conducted by the State Auditor’s office. According to Wikipedia, “an independent examination of a program, function, operation or the management systems and procedures of a governmental or non-profit entity to assess whether the entity is achieving economy, efficiency and effectiveness in the employment of available resources.” Based on recommendations from the State Auditor, the LAC may introduce legislation to create or clarify statutes identified in the audit reports.

Legislative oversight of principal departments – §2-7-101, C.R.S.
Section 2-7-101, C.R.S., better known as the SMART Act,* requires each legislative joint committee of reference to conduct hearings with assigned executive-branch departments regarding each department’s performance plans, regulatory agendas, budget requests, and associated legislative agendas – before each session. The goal of these hearings is for legislators to get a better sense of what is going on in the executive branch by asking questions, making sure that the departments are implementing laws as expected, and learning about departments’ legislative agendas before the legislative session starts. The appropriate joint committee of reference is notified when a department does not complete state auditor recommendations in a timely manner and when a department does not adopt legislatively required or authorized rules. The JBC will also use the departments’ performance plans to help prioritize departments’ requests for new funding. For more information regarding the SMART Act, see “So you think you’re so SMART?”

Sunset Review Process – review of regulatory agencies and functions – §§2-3-1203 and 24-34-104, C.R.S.
A number of entities, functions, boards, and advisory committees within state government are scheduled to terminate each year due to statutory repeal or “sunset” provisions. Under the sunset process, the Department of Regulatory Agencies (DORA) regularly reviews the functions of each state regulatory agency, division, or board, and each advisory committee, before its termination date, to determine whether the agency, division, board, or advisory committee should continue performing its functions with or without modifications. DORA issues a report to the General Assembly that a committee of reference reviews during the legislative session in a public hearing, which can include testimony from the program’s administrators and interested members of the public. The General Assembly must act by bill to continue the functions provided by an agency, division, board, or advisory committee. If the General Assembly does not act, the agency, division, or board goes into a one-year wind up period. If the General Assembly does not pass a bill to continue an advisory committee, the committee is repealed on the scheduled sunset date. For additional information regarding the sunset review process in Colorado see “The Sunset Process: Legislative Review of Regulatory Agencies and Functions” and “Sunset Reviews Conducted by Standing Committees”.

* State Measurement for Accountable, Responsive, and Transparent (SMART) Government Act

by Debbie Haskins

Each year executive branch agencies in Colorado adopt over 500 sets of rules creating at least 16,000 pages of rules and accompanying materials. That’s a lot of rules! And every one of those rules, along with the corresponding materials, is read and analyzed by a staff member of the Office of Legislative Legal Services (OLLS).

Through this rule review function, required by statute and performed by the OLLS and the Committee on Legal Services (Committee), the legislative branch oversees executive branch agency rule-making. In this example of the checks and balances between the legislative branch and the executive branch, the General Assembly reviews rules adopted by state agencies to find any instances where an agency has adopted rules that do not comply with the agency’s statutory authority or where rules conflict with state or federal law. When problems are found, the General Assembly takes steps to “check” that action by eliminating the flawed rule.

The State Administrative Procedure Act (APA) requires each state agency to submit every rule that it adopts or revises to the OLLS for review under the supervision of the Committee. The standard of review is based on language in section 24-4-103 (8) (a), C.R.S., which states that “No rule shall be issued except within the power delegated to the agency and as authorized by law.” This means that when the General Assembly enacts statutes that delegate to a state agency the power to adopt rules, those rules must conform with the power delegated to that agency, must be authorized by the law, and must not conflict with the law. The vast majority of rules meet these requirements and the Committee and the General Assembly do not have to take action regarding them. But sometimes a rule fails to meet one of these requirements. At that point, the Committee and the General Assembly turn to the process laid out in the APA.

The APA establishes a year-round cycle for reviewing rules. Under section 24-4-103 (8), C.R.S., rules adopted during that one-year period (from November 1 through October 31) automatically expire on May 15 following their adoption, unless the General Assembly extends the rules by passing a bill. The bill referred to in the statute is the annual Rule Review Bill, sponsored by the Committee. The Rule Review Bill postpones the automatic expiration of these agency rules, except for those rules listed in the bill that the Committee has determined should expire because the rules 1) lack statutory authority, 2) exceed statutory authority, or 3) conflict with a state or federal statute or constitutional provision.

If the OLLS staff finds one of those three grounds for challenging a rule, the staff contacts the agency to discuss the issues with the rule. If the agency disagrees with the analysis or is unable to fix the problems identified with the rule, the staff schedules the rule issue for a hearing before the Committee. The OLLS staff writes a memo for the Committee explaining the staff’s analysis, and the agency may also submit a memo to the Committee. At the hearing, the Committee hears from the OLLS staff and from the agency and takes public testimony. At the conclusion of the rule review hearing, the Committee votes as to whether the rule should or should not be extended in the Rule Review Bill. The Committee bases its decision on the legal question of the authority of the rule — not on whether the rule in question is a good or bad policy for the state. After the Rule Review Bill passes, the OLLS staff transmits the bill to the Secretary of State’s office, which removes any expired rules from the Colorado Code of Regulations.

Sometimes the underlying problem with a rule is that the statute should be clarified, and the agency may seek legislation to give it specific statutory authority for the rule. Under its policies, the Committee will not introduce corrective legislation to fix rule issues. The executive branch agency must find a legislator to sponsor a bill to change the statutes and authorize the agency to adopt the rule.

Another legislative oversight function that the OLLS carries out relates to tracking legislation that requires or authorizes executive branch agencies to adopt rules. In 2013, the General Assembly enacted Senate Bill 13-030 to help answer the perennial question of bill sponsors: “Did the agency ever adopt rules to implement my bill?” Section 24-4-103 (8) (e), C.R.S., requires the OLLS to identify these rules and notify sponsors and cosponsors when the agency adopts the rules required or authorized by the new legislation. This requirement applies to legislation enacted during the 2013 legislative session and sessions thereafter. An earlier article (SB 13-030 in Action: Improved Communication between Rule-making Agencies and Legislators) explained how the OLLS will notify legislators.

But what if you want to know whether an agency ever adopted rules to implement a bill you heard in a committee of reference? Or what if you no longer have the e-mail notice sent to you? Any one can look up rule implementation information at any time on the OLLS’s homepage under a new tab entitled Rule Review. The OLLS is maintaining a chart, organized by committees of reference, that shows each bill for which rules are adopted. The chart also provides a link to the rule information that each agency files during the rule adoption process. Click here for a link to the current chart.

Section 24-4-103 (8) (e), C.R.S., also requires the OLLS to notify the current members of the applicable committees of reference when these rules are adopted. Beginning January 2015, and each January thereafter, the OLLS will send an annual email notice to the committees of reference with the chart of rules that the OLLS has compiled.

By Gwynne Middleton

Legislators work hard to pass bills to improve the lives of Coloradans. Many of these bills include statutory rule-making authority for state agencies so that they can implement the bills legislators pass. In many cases, however, the legislator who sponsors a bill never knows what the state agency is doing to implement the bill. (more…)

by Chuck Brackney

The approach of fall brings a number of signals that the seasons are changing.  Leaves turning bright colors, colder temperatures, and the return of football are just some of these.  Around the Office of Legislative Legal Services (OLLS), though, the advent of autumn means that rule review season is in full swing.

(more…)