Jan. 6—Maine lawmakers are poised to add some guardrails around vague placeholder bills, but they aren’t ready to abandon the practice, which has been criticized by legislators and the public for eroding transparency in state government.
A record number of so-called concept drafts were submitted in the previous session of the Legislature. Such bills often contain scant details about the bill’s purpose other than a vague title, though some concept drafts come with more detailed descriptions. The practice makes it difficult for the public, advocates and even lawmakers to track down information about a bill before a public hearing or work session.
The Legislature’s Rules Committee cast a nonbinding 9-1 vote on Monday to require details of concept drafts to be posted online at least two days before a public hearing.
If the bill language is not posted online within that time frame, the bill would die in committee under the proposed rule change offered by House Speaker Ryan Fecteau, D-Biddeford. Bills exempt from the requirement include the governor’s budget, model legislation or interstate compacts.
The change did not go far enough for some Republicans, including Sen. Rick Bennett of Oxford, who has criticized the practice in recent years.
“I don’t see any reason for concept drafts” besides the budget, Bennett said. “The Legislature lived for decades without them. They’re a relatively new construct.”
An analysis by the Press Herald last spring found that lawmakers offered a record number of concept bills in the last session.
Lawmakers submitted about 250 concept bills last session, a 25% increase from the previous one and a fourfold increase from the roughly 60 concept bills submitted about 20 years ago. About 11% of all bills introduced in the previous Legislature were concept bills, compared to 5% of the bills introduced in the 2015-16 Legislature.
Members of the previous Legislature acknowledged the problem last year. A group met over the summer to collect ideas about possible rule changes, but could only issue recommendations for the incoming Legislature, which sets its own rules.
Democrats, who control both chambers, supported adding some guardrails to concept drafts, while defending their necessity for issues that arise during the session or for ambitious legislation that takes time to craft.
Legislative staff raised concerns about complying with the proposed rules.
Danielle Fox, the director of the Office of Policy and Legal Analysis, which analyzes bills and works with individual committees on legislative proposals, said her staff’s workflow is built around paper correspondence and information for lawmakers, and the online system only uploads documents drafted by the revisor’s office and reviewed and voted on by the committee. Increasing the amount of information posted online, including staff analyses, which are often produced minutes before a work session, would increase staff workload, she said.
“It’s not a click of the button.” Fox said.
Revisor of Statutes Edward Charbonneau, whose office drafts bill language for lawmakers, said he is concerned that the proposed deadline for details — two days before a hearing — could actually lead to an increase in the number of concept drafts.
Fecteau, however, didn’t share that concern, saying that the new rules would introduce new risks for lawmakers who rely on concept drafts.
“I don’t think this is suddenly the gold rush to submitting concept drafts. I think the opposite will occur. This will give people pause,” Fecteau said. “You risk not having your language submitted in time and having a committee move into work session and kill your bill.”
The committee, which deferred action on other proposed rule changes, including late-night committee votes, will meet again Thursday afternoon to vote on a formal amendment to the rules, which would be sent to the full Legislature for approval.
Legislative rules can be amended with a majority vote before Jan. 17 but would need a supermajority of two-thirds after that.
Copy the Story Link