A Republican bill moving through the Legislature would allow the legislative leaders to make appointments to the Governor’s Regulatory Review Council, the entity that reviews state agency rules.

GRRC is set to sunset at the end of this year and Republicans are reluctant to continue the council without major changes and another review in two years. Rep. Walt Blackman, R-Snowflake, sponsored a bill to renew GRRC, but the bill would also change the council’s makeup and add several additional responsibilities.

The bill would remove full control of GRRC from Democratic Gov. Katie Hobbs and allow lawmakers to appoint half of the council’s members. For his part, Blackman said the bill is not motivated by partisanship or a desire to “beat these agencies up.”

“My mindset was, what can we do to help this committee or this organization to be able to perform the way they’re supposed to perform,” Blackman said.

GRRC is housed under the Department of Administration and was created in 1981 to oversee agency rulemaking. Though small and often overlooked, it has an extremely important role in state government – reviewing proposed rules for clarity, compliance with statute, economic impact and other factors.

The council also conducts periodic reviews of existing rules to determine whether they need to be amended or repealed. According to a presentation by a GRRC staff attorney given to lawmakers in January, the council improved or eliminated 677 existing rules in fiscal year 2024 and has reviewed 317 new rulemaking packages since 2019.

GRRC oversees nearly every state agency, with the exception of the Arizona Corporation Commission and certain rules made by both the Industrial Commission and the State Lottery. It also does not oversee policies made by government entities that are headed by an elected official, like the Governor’s Office or the Secretary of State’s Office.

GRRC has seven members, one ex-officio member from the Arizona Department of Administration who is the council’s chairperson and six members appointed by the governor. Currently, two members must be appointed by the governor from two lists of names provided by the speaker of the House and the president of the Senate.

Under Blackman’s bill, the governor would only be able to appoint three members of GRRC and one would have to be chosen from a list provided jointly by the House speaker and Senate president. Each legislative leader would then get to make one appointment respectively and one appointment jointly.

The bill would also prohibit the chair of GRRC from serving as the general counsel of ADOA and would instead designate the ADOA director or assistant director as the chair. The current chair of GRRC, Jessica Klein, is also ADOA’s general counsel.

Blackman said the change in makeup is less about taking away control from Hobbs and more about giving some control to lawmakers who create the statutes that kickstart the agency rulemaking process.

“We make the laws, and those rules are depending on the laws that we make, so that’s why I believe the Legislature should have a say on GRRC,” Blackman said.

Will Humble, who served as the director of the Department of Health Services during former Gov. Jan Brewer’s administration, said he thinks balancing out the representation on GRRC could be a good thing.

“The Legislature gives the executive branch the statutory authority to write the regulations and rules and the way it is now, the agencies go to GRRC and they get those rules approved,” Humble said. “But there’s not a whole lot of input from the legislative branch because they’re not on GRRC. So I think it makes sense, and it would be reasonable checks and balance wise, to have some members appointed by legislators.”

Rulemaking is a lengthy process that usually starts when the Legislature passes a law giving an agency authority to make policies in a certain area. Once rules are drafted, they go through a public comment period and several internal reviews during which changes are made. After rules are finalized by an agency, they go to GRRC for another review and final approval.

Republicans in the Legislature have raised concerns in recent years over whether or not GRRC is taking constitutional concerns and legislative intent into account when approving rules. However, state statute requires the council to consider whether rules are illegal or inconsistent with legislative intent before approving them.

Blackman’s bill would require GRRC staff to review the state Constitution and relevant statutes independently of any statutory justification provided by an agency as part of its rulemaking package.

Diane Brown, the executive director of Arizona Public Interest Research Group, said GRRC’s current review of the constitutionality and economic impact of rules tends to be “comprehensive, bordering on excessive.”

“As is the case with any proceeding where legality is concerned, there are likely to be differences of opinion,” Brown said. “Generally, GRRC has more review through both its study sessions and its meetings than most laws go through before they are adopted and implemented.”

Members of the public can petition GRRC to review a rule if they believe it was not made in accordance with state law. Blackman’s bill would also allow the public to request a review if they believe a rule violates their fundamental legal rights.

Blackman’s bill has a few other provisions, like requiring GRRC staff to distribute meeting materials to the House speaker and Senate president, clarifying when members can vote on rules and requiring that equal time be given during public comment for those opposing and supporting a rule.

Humble said he doesn’t have any issue with the provisions of the bill, but noted that they could place an extra burden on staff or GRRC members who are already not well compensated. Currently, council members are paid $200 per meeting, which does not factor in time spent reviewing rules before meetings.

“GRRC members, like all other board members, get pocket change for being on these things,” Humble said. “If you want people to read the agenda ahead of time and do the homework and give them this extra responsibility that’s in this new statute, then you should increase the compensation to make it worth their trouble.”

Blackman agrees that GRRC members should be paid more and said the council also needs more staff to fulfill its responsibilities. He said his bill is still “fluid” and that the issue could be addressed in the future.

Humble and Brown both said they believe stipulations added to GRRC’s renewal are motivated by the fact that state agencies are overseen by a Democratic governor.

Brown said attaching these stipulations to the bill that determines the fate of the council, “smacks of politics instead of the thoughtful review that is expected to consider the reauthorization of an agency.”

Despite what he sees as partisan motivations, Humble said adding more guardrails to state agencies now could be helpful for Democrats if and when a Republican lands in the Governor’s Office again.

“This kind of stuff is coming up now because [Republicans] don’t like that Hobbs is a Democrat, but for governance purposes, I think it’s important.” Humble said. “You should be thinking about what the guardrails should be for state government, not necessarily what [should be for] the people today, that way you can prepare for, like, a Governor [Andy] Biggs.”

Blackman’s bill still needs final approval from the House and will need to clear several hurdles in the Senate, and he said he is still open to making changes on it as it moves through the Legislature. It also would need to be signed by Hobbs, but her office usually does not comment on pending legislation and declined to comment on this specific bill.