|
IRRC
Dec 14, 2012 10:03:21 GMT -5
Post by melody on Dec 14, 2012 10:03:21 GMT -5
So this is what we could end up dealing with if they ever succeed in putting our agencies under IRRC:
PA regulatory review panel votes to disapprove L&I’s new UC work search rules.
The Pennsylvania Independent Regulatory Review Commission (IRRC) on Thursday voted 3-2 to disapprove the Department of Labor and Industry’s proposed unemployment compensation work search regulations. Senate Bill 1030, which became Act 6 of 2011, mandates that claimants actively search for a job in order to receive unemployment compensation benefits. Some of the details of those search requirements are spelled out in the law, but the department was given some latitude in developing regulations governing searches. Prior to SB 1030’s passage, Pennsylvania had been the only state in the country where work search was not a requirement to receive unemployment compensation. Legislative staff estimated the work search requirement would yield approximately $23 million in annual savings to the state’s unemployment compensation system. However, the IRRC appears to have sided with those who raised concerns that the department’s regulations overstepped the statutory blueprint provided by SB 1030. The IRRC had also raised concerns about the lack of appropriate explanation in the department’s rulemaking for the imposition of various sections of the proposed regulations (CLICK HERE for the IRRC’s comments on the proposed rulemaking and HERE for the department’s response to some of those comm ents). The department now has three options: it can decide to press on with its current set of regulations, modify them to address the expressed concerns, or withdraw them and start fresh. If the department decides to adopt the regulations over the IRRC’s disapproval, the General Assembly’s standing committees overseeing the department – in this case the House and Senate Labor and Industry committees – have the option to report to their respective chambers a concurrent resolution regarding the regulations, within 14 days of receipt of the IRRC’s disapproval letter. If a concurrent resolution is introduced and reported to either chamber in that time frame, lawmakers have 30 calendar days or 10 legislative session days, whichever is longer, to adopt the resolution, which would still need gubernatorial approval. If the governor would veto the resolution, lawmakers would then have another 30 days/10 days timeframe to override the veto. Since the General Assembly is between sessions, so to speak, new standing committees have yet to be established. So if anything is going to happen regarding the work search rulemaking, it won’t start until sometime in mid-to-late January once the new Legislature is seated and organized.
|
|
|
IRRC
Dec 14, 2012 10:49:44 GMT -5
Post by dennyf on Dec 14, 2012 10:49:44 GMT -5
We can always use a few additional layers of bureaucratic meddling, right?
|
|
|
IRRC
Dec 14, 2012 15:22:09 GMT -5
Post by davetm on Dec 14, 2012 15:22:09 GMT -5
I'm from the Government, and I'm here to help.
|
|
|
IRRC
Feb 27, 2013 20:06:37 GMT -5
Post by melody on Feb 27, 2013 20:06:37 GMT -5
Are they getting things lined up for when both agencies are under IRRC?
HCO1335 By Moul. Requires standing committees to review all proposed regulations and prohibit an agency from promulgating a proposed regulation if a committee disapproves a regulation.
* February 26, 2013 12:52 PM * Rep. Dan Moul * Legislation to Amend the Regulatory Review Act * In the near future, I plan on introducing legislation that would amend * the Regulatory Review Act to provide committees with greater oversight * during the regulatory review process. Specifically, my legislation * would require standing committees to review all proposed regulations * and prohibit an agency from promulgating a proposed regulation if a * committee disapproves a regulation. * * * * Currently, committees do have the ability to review proposed * regulations and offer comments during the regulatory review process. * However, an agency can choose to move forward with a proposed * regulation despite a committee's disapproval of a proposed regulation. * While historically agencies do try to address the concerns of a * committee, the only option for a committee to prevent a proposed * regulation from being promulgated is to report a concurrent resolution, * which must be adopted by the General Assembly by majority vote and * signed by the Governor. * * * * Under my legislation, an agency has two options if either the House or * the Senate committee disapproves of a regulation. The agency can either * withdraw the regulation or the agency can revise the proposed * regulation and resubmit the proposed regulation to both the Independent * Regulatory Review Commission and the appropriate standing committees * for approval. If a committee disapproves of a resubmitted proposed * regulation, the agency is prohibited from promulgating the proposed * regulation and must withdraw the proposed regulation or revise and * resubmit the proposed regulation again. My legislation would permit * proposed regulations to be promulgated only if both of the standing * committees approve the regulation. * * * * I believe this legislation is necessary to ensure that agencies remain * within the confines of the General Assembly's legislative intent when * promulgating regulations. If you have any questions regarding this * legislation, please contact my office at 783-5217.
|
|
|
IRRC
Feb 27, 2013 21:49:55 GMT -5
Post by galthatfishes on Feb 27, 2013 21:49:55 GMT -5
Ran into the head of IRRC at the Capitol one day. He told me that he hopes to GOD they aren't given Game and Fish. Does IRRC have the ability to say NO WAY
|
|
|
IRRC
Feb 28, 2013 12:34:00 GMT -5
Post by melody on Feb 28, 2013 12:34:00 GMT -5
Nope, they don't. Their last ED was "let go" shortly after he made statements that contradicted with political attempts to question the current system. He didn't like the idea of putting game and fish under their purview either, as they were already overloaded and underfunded.
|
|
|
IRRC
Mar 1, 2013 14:42:25 GMT -5
Post by galthatfishes on Mar 1, 2013 14:42:25 GMT -5
Well, there ya have it. Now that we have CWD; I wonder if these same legiscritters still favor IRRC
|
|
|
IRRC
Mar 1, 2013 14:49:18 GMT -5
Post by davetm on Mar 1, 2013 14:49:18 GMT -5
Vote out the incumbent. State and Federal levels.
|
|
|
IRRC
Mar 1, 2013 17:39:47 GMT -5
Post by melody on Mar 1, 2013 17:39:47 GMT -5
HB 868 By Moul. Amends Regulatory Review Act further providing for defs., final-form regs. & final omitted regs. & review, for disapproval of regs. & emergency-certified regs., for subsequent review & changes.
|
|
|
IRRC
Mar 2, 2013 7:26:47 GMT -5
Post by wentzler on Mar 2, 2013 7:26:47 GMT -5
Been trying to avoid reading this thread, too. Have always had a distinct 'distaste' for the word "purview", since I first looked it up. I would bet it was 'coined' by a member of some parliament or legislature.
|
|
|
IRRC
Mar 2, 2013 10:40:59 GMT -5
Post by stan on Mar 2, 2013 10:40:59 GMT -5
Well, there ya have it. Now that we have CWD; I wonder if these same legiscritters still favor IRRC Doubtful, they mostly can not connect the dots as assignment to F&G is like a clubhouse where constituent demands can be given freely as it doesn't affect the General fund. Second, assignment to F&G means that no real research be done or knowledge is required as you just go with the loudest voice or defer to leadership. Seriously, if we had a F&G Committee that was in tune with the issues and challenges of our game agencies, they would be conducting business much differently.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
IRRC
Mar 14, 2013 11:37:37 GMT -5
Post by Deleted on Mar 14, 2013 11:37:37 GMT -5
This will lead to ballot box wildlife management...and folks this will be the beginning of the end to hunting and trapping in PA as we know it. PA, TX, &MI are the holy grails for the animal rights movement.If this happens the AR groups will pour money into the state and emotion, not science will be the rule. Mark my words, they'll come for trappers and their cruel body gripping traps first. Then they'll come for the inhumane leg hold traps. Then they'll come for the varmint hunters because it's dastardly to kill something for the fun of it and not for food. Then they'll come for the dove hunters because it's unthinkable to shoot the symbol of peace. Then they'll come for the bowhunters because it's gruesome to kill something by hemmorage. Then they'll come for the rabbit hunters because how can anyone condone the killing of cute little innocent cottontail rabbit? Then they'll come for the grouse hunters because it's an infamnia to kill the state bird...and so on.
|
|
|
IRRC
Mar 14, 2013 13:15:06 GMT -5
Post by stan on Mar 14, 2013 13:15:06 GMT -5
So much truth in that post.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
IRRC
Mar 14, 2013 14:32:30 GMT -5
Post by Deleted on Mar 14, 2013 14:32:30 GMT -5
I may not know a whole helluva lot on a number of topics and issues, but there is one topic I know inside and out and that is the animal rights movement. Your eyes would bleed if you knew how many of Obama's appointees, czars, and advisors are on the side of the animal rights movement. Why do you think the AR groups have been relatively silent over the last 4 years?
Read Obama's advisor Cass Sunstein's book titled "Nudge" and apply what you have read to what has happened in the last 4 years...then get on your knees and pray.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
IRRC
Mar 14, 2013 14:50:32 GMT -5
Post by Deleted on Mar 14, 2013 14:50:32 GMT -5
Yeesh. I'm getting some learnin' around here these days...
|
|
|
IRRC
Mar 14, 2013 14:59:30 GMT -5
Post by wentzler on Mar 14, 2013 14:59:30 GMT -5
cl:) Some of this crowd...astounds one how much they do know:) Made it a point a long time ago..to get to know THEM Never. Been disappointed!
|
|
|
IRRC
Mar 14, 2013 15:26:49 GMT -5
Post by melody on Mar 14, 2013 15:26:49 GMT -5
We often get called names, like "conspiracy theorists" and a few others, for trying to get folks to see the long-term problems with their "but I want it now" views....but there's a few of us that have been around the block a few times to know for a fact that we have very just cause to worry about legislative interferrence in wildlife management and hunting regulations. If we start letting the legislators get away with these "but my constituent hunters asked for it" micro-management of wildlife management, IRRC review, etc.....well I couldn't have said it better than Kodiak.
|
|
|
IRRC
Mar 14, 2013 15:42:52 GMT -5
Post by Dutch on Mar 14, 2013 15:42:52 GMT -5
You saying you're old? I haven't been around the block as many times, but, what these good folks are saying is so VERY true. Wildlife management was INTENDED to be out of the hands of the legislators, that's why the legislators that set these agencies up, set them up to be independent, or close to it. We each can influence the PGC Board, if we want to, as hunters, but, when we take things to the legislature, our voices get mixed in with so many others, and hunter's voices get diluted. I will say this, and it is true, hunters took a large hit a few years ago, with the crossbow issue. It fragmented us, like no other issue. We had some sense of a fraternity before that, and that fraternity needs to be re-built. The reason legislators can meddle, is because they know that hunters no longer speak with one voice, but many voices. There exists a vacuum now, and vacuums get filled.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
IRRC
Mar 14, 2013 15:47:29 GMT -5
Post by Deleted on Mar 14, 2013 15:47:29 GMT -5
I wish I was wrong.
|
|