Joint resolution; approving certain proposed permanent rules of certain state agencies.
Summary
SJR18 is a joint resolution that approves a package of proposed permanent administrative rules submitted by several Oklahoma state agencies for filing on or before February 1, 2025. The agencies covered include the Oklahoma State Athletic Commission, Oklahoma Department of Emergency Management, Office of Management and Enterprise Services (OMES), Oklahoma Department of Veterans Affairs, Oklahoma Department of Aerospace and Aeronautics, and the Department of Transportation.
The resolution also rejects three specific OMES rule amendments: one to subsection (c) of rule 260:115-3-11, one to subsection (o) of rule 260:115-7-32 concerning evaluation ties, and one to subsection (a) of rule 260:95-3-6. In each case, the resolution restores the prior rule language rather than allowing the proposed amendment to take effect. The measure is a legislative oversight action over agency rulemaking, not a substantive policy bill creating new statutory programs.
Impact
SJR18 does not directly amend the Oklahoma Statutes, but it affects how state agencies may implement and enforce their administrative rules. By approving most proposed permanent rules and disapproving three OMES amendments, the Legislature determines which agency regulations become effective and which revert to existing language. The practical impact falls on the affected agencies, their regulated parties, and any state personnel or contractors subject to OMES procedures, as well as the broader administrative framework for emergency management, veterans services, aerospace, transportation, and athletic regulation.
Sentiment
The bill appears to have been received favorably and without significant opposition. It advanced through both chambers with unanimous recorded votes in committee and on third reading, indicating broad bipartisan support for the overall rule package and for the Legislature’s selective disapproval of the three OMES provisions. The absence of committee transcript debate suggests the resolution was treated as a routine administrative rules measure.
Contention
The only notable points of contention are the three OMES rule amendments that were specifically disapproved. Although the record does not include debate explaining the objections, the Legislature chose to block changes related to subsection (c) of 260:115-3-11, evaluation ties under 260:115-7-32, and subsection (a) of 260:95-3-6, while leaving the rest of the agencies’ proposed rules intact. This indicates any disagreement was limited to those OMES provisions rather than the broader rule package.