PEER; authorize to institute program of reviewing selected administrative rules.
Summary
SB 2378 would authorize the Mississippi PEER Committee to create a new program for reviewing selected administrative rules. Under the bill, PEER could examine newly adopted agency rules to determine whether they conform to the intent of the law that authorized them, and it could also consider other issues it deems relevant. The committee’s reports would be submitted to the Legislature and could include recommendations for legislative action when PEER believes action is warranted.
The bill sets an initial review period beginning July 1, 2025, during which PEER may select 15 rules adopted in the prior year for review and must report those findings by December 15, 2025. After that, PEER could review up to 30 rules per year, with annual reports due each December 15. The act would take effect July 1, 2025.
Impact
This bill would add a new statutory section, Section 5-3-79.1, to the Mississippi Code and expand the PEER Committee’s oversight role over administrative rulemaking. It does not directly change substantive agency regulations, but it creates a formal legislative review mechanism for selected rules and may lead to future legislative or administrative changes based on PEER’s findings. The affected parties would include state agencies that adopt administrative rules, the PEER Committee, and the Legislature, which would receive the reports and any recommendations.
Sentiment
The available context suggests generally favorable or at least oversight-oriented support for the bill, as reflected in its placement under accountability, efficiency, and transparency. The bill’s purpose is framed as improving legislative review of agency rules rather than restricting agencies outright. No committee transcript or recorded vote information is available, so there is no evidence in the provided materials of organized opposition or a divided vote.
Contention
The main point of potential contention is the scope of legislative oversight over executive-branch rulemaking. Supporters are likely to view the bill as a transparency and accountability measure that helps ensure agency rules stay within statutory authority, while critics could see it as adding another layer of review that may slow rule implementation or increase administrative burden. Because no hearing transcript or vote record is provided, specific objections or named opponents cannot be identified from the available materials.