A bill that would allow the legislative majority to have greater representation on the Regulation Review Committee, currently the only legislative committee that has equal bipartisan members, drew criticism during a March 18 public hearing before the Government Administration and Elections (GAE) Committee.
Currently, the Regulation Review Committee has 14 members: seven Democrats and seven Republicans. The committee reviews regulations proposed by various state agencies and approves or disapproves them based on whether there is any perceived conflict with state law or the state’s constitution.
But HB 5554 would change the committee’s makeup to be in proportion to the number of major and minor party legislators in both chambers.
“The number of major party and minor party members of the Senate shall be in proportion to the number of members of such party in the Senate, and the number of major party and minor party members of the House of Representatives shall be in proportion to the number of such party members in the House of Representatives.” the bill’s proposed language reads. The bill would also remove language that allows leaders of the minority party to appoint members to serve on the committee.
The majority of testimony submitted on the bill and presented during the March 18 hearing was in opposition to the change and to removing the committee’s bipartisan balance.
Over 300 pieces of written testimony on the bill were submitted, all opposing the change. Much of that testimony came from everyday citizens and from those who have also publicly opposed several high-profile bills that would change homeschooling regulations and state vaccine requirements.
HB 5044, a governor’s bill, would allow the commissioner of Connecticut’s Department of Public Health (DPH) to set an immunization standard of care for children and adults based on the recommendations of professional health organizations like the American Academy of Pediatrics and not just recommendations from the federal government.
Connecticut is among a number of states where officials have proposed similar bills establishing a separate vaccine schedule from the federal government recommendations in the wake of controversial changes led by U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Secretary and anti-vaccine activist Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.
Language in the bill that states that the DPH commissioner’s revised standards of care would not be considered regulation has also drawn criticism from the bill’s opponents.
A number of opponents of HB 5044, including Senate Minority Leader Stephen Harding, R-Brookfield, suggested that if that language is dropped due to push back, a partisan majority on the Regulation Review Committee could have the ability to influence the outcome.
“This would put the Regulation Review Committee in the spotlight regarding the highly controversial vaccine issue. The committee would no longer be balanced as it assesses regulations impacting our freedoms and liberties, parental rights and individual rights.” Harding wrote in testimony opposing the bill.
Harding also spoke against the bill during GAE’s public hearing. Asked by Sen. Rob Sampson, R-Wolcott, about how the bill would impact other legislation, Harding said the theory of the bill was not to look at regulations through a partisan lens, but whether or not it is legal.
Sen. Mae Flexer, D-Windham, said she thought the Regulation Review Committee gives the legislature the ability to be an equal branch of government and asked Harding if he thought there were other things that could be done to strengthen the legislature’s role.
Harding pointed to the recently created Government Oversight Committee and suggested it could be strengthened to have broader authority and act as a check on the executive branch. He agreed with Flexer that the committee could work with state auditors to that end.
Rep. Nicole Klarides-Ditria, R-Seymour, a member of the Regulation Review Committee, also opposed the bill.
“Before altering the structure of a committee that plays such a critical oversight role, the legislature should demonstrate a clear problem that needs to be fixed. No such case has been made.” Klarides-Ditria wrote in testimony. “The LRRC exists to protect the public by ensuring regulations remain transparent, lawful, and consistent with legislative intent. Changes that weaken bipartisan oversight or concentrate power undermine that mission.”
A separate section of HB 5554 would also require state agencies to submit an annual report on regulations they intend to amend or repeal. Under current law, agencies are required to submit a review of their existing regulations every seven years.
Was this article helpful?
Republish our articles for free, online or in print, under a Creative Commons license.
